That's the exact opposite of what happened. Canada didn't get a Responsible Government until 1848.
That decision is usually considered to be at least partly motivated by a desire to avoid AWI Mk. 2, though.
That's the exact opposite of what happened. Canada didn't get a Responsible Government until 1848.
doesn't it depend how its lost (won). If Britain wins partly by political means it could go one way. if by some types of military victories other ways.Worse, definitely. The defeat caused Britain to introduce more democracy and self rule to its remaining white colonies, which led to them turning into some of the most successful countries in the world today. France and by extension the whole of Europe was also affected. The west might still be in feudal system with lords and peasants otherwise.
hmm The Iroquois were not particularly a weapon used by the British.. Indeed they were in many ways an independent wielder of power. Anderson examines this in detail in his book on the 7 years war which examines the consequences of the Iroquois very much self motivated desire to control the Ohio valley. BTW the Iroquois themselves were one of the biggest culprits in seizing others land. Just ask the Delaware. As for the treatment of aboriginals not good. in general, however, London was somewhat better at keeping actual treaties than settlers were whether in the USA (terrible) or Canada (not quite so bad but still poor) The Southern slavery interest was not significant compared with the West Indies and that posed no major problem to London. The people who would probably have benefitted most from a British military victory were the black volunteers and their families.Why is this the case? The Brits weren't particularly honorable towards tribes aligned against them, the Iroquois weren't an equal partner in British dominion so much as a weapon the Brits unleashed against the tribes that didn't fall in line, and against French settlers. It was convenient to honor treaties with a couple of useful tribes but they weren't going to be any more saintly. Hell, look at British treatment of the aboriginals in Australia or general European treatment of Africans, hardly any honor or scrupulously upholding treaties.
What contrast? As I recall there have been a lot of issues between First Nations and the Canadian government regarding abuse by the government and the police. There was a dramatic armed standoff resulting in deaths on both sides in the 90's.
Again, why? It took until the late 1830's for Britain to get around to banning slavery in the colonies, several decades after losing the American South and all the slaveholding lords there having lost a major source of their income. With a victory in the ARW the members of the House of Lords who had Southern interests continue to have a say in Parliament and would prevent abolitionist measures. Slavery would also probably last longer in the northern colonies which banned it immediately after the revolution.
Yes the decision to withhold any meaningful participation in their own government was how the British envisioned they could prevent republican sentiment from spreading to Canada. Only later When Canada had its own revolts did the British reconsider (and it still took them over a decade to reach that conclusion).That decision is usually considered to be at least partly motivated by a desire to avoid AWI Mk. 2, though.
Well a sensible win would have been incorporation of American MPs in the Commons as part of a POD Great Reform Bill in the earliest stages and defuse the whole issue. That would require an excessive amount of PODs in the dynamics of the OTL Lords. There was significant sympathy with the situation in America even if not with the rebellion itself.The key to this question is how the British win.
I agree. My opinion, the ideal result of a British victory would have been America becoming the first Dominion (an autonomous community within the British Empire) and later on given Commonwealth status.The key to this question is how the British win.
An early victory (say Howe decisively defeats Washington and forces his surrender in New York) would IMHO lead to a more generous settlement and limited reprisals. A later victory (say 1777-1780) might result in a harsher peace. A late war conclusion (Cornwallis escapes and everyone is too broke and exhausted to continue) would probably result in a compromise settlement. As for better or worse, that depends on how the butterflies flap their wings.....
If that had happened it is probable given the lack of unity amongst the 13 colonies that it would not have been one dominion, but several. As it was OTL the USA barely survived the articles of Confederation.I agree. My opinion, the ideal result of a British victory would have been America becoming the first Dominion (an autonomous community within the British Empire) and later on given Commonwealth status.
That's possible as well.If that had happened it is probable given the lack of unity amongst the 13 colonies that it would not have been one dominion, but several. As it was OTL the USA barely survived the articles of Confederation.