Would the British have let the Americans break off peacefully sometime in the 19th century?

Short answer would be, if the 13 colonies remained part of the UK, they would not be treated much differently then the UK possessions in Canada or Australia. They would eventually gain more and more sovereignty and finally become an independent state of the Commonwealth, but probably not by mid 19th century. More likely by the early to mid 20th century like Canada and Australia abovementioned.

However an America not gaining independence before 1800, may have been totally different from OTL's US even by 1850. So who knows what the situation might have looked like and what OTL queen Victoria might have decided to do with it if it became rebellious or malcontent at some point.

Some ideas to consider:
=> how far would British America have expanded from the original 13 colonies compared to OTL US? (Would Victoria pick a fight with Mexico over Texas and California? Or would it even take on the French Republic over Louisiana- fat chance of Napoleon selling it to them like he sold it to the fellow Republicans of the US.)
=> Would a British American Colonies still see the same influx of immigrants the US did? And how would this shape not only the historical makeup of the US, but also the dynamics in Europe? How would the Irish Potato Famine play out if 1/5 of the population had no place to start over in? Or what if instead they ended up in Mexico?
=> Would the UK still abolish slavery in all of its territories by 1820? And how would that play out in the Southern Colonies?

So just to make a point. If the 1776 revolution somehow didn't happen, today's US might be anything, from a patchwork of states like in the south of the continent, to a Mega-Canada rivaling India in size and population, to a Grand Mexico occupying everything south and west of Charleston... Even to a United States of Australia taking over the US's role OTL...
 
Loyalist_(American_Revolution)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)#cite_note-23
.
.
.
“estimates of the Loyalist share of the population were somewhat higher, at about one-third, but these estimates are now rejected as too high by most scholars.[23]
This is NOT backed up by the two sources listed in footnote 23.

I count it as an example of crappy work published in wikipedia.


”THE loyalists were colonists who by some overt action, such as signing addresses, bearing arms, doing business with the British Army, seeking military protection, or going into exile, . . . ”
I’m not sure where you’re getting this source. I’m willing to take a look if you could please give me a link.
 
Last edited:
This is NOT backed up by the two sources listed in footnote 23.

I count it as an example of crappy work published in wikipedia.



I’m not sure where you’re getting this source. I’m willing to take a look if you could please give me a link.
https://books.google.de/books/about...n_Revolution.html?id=7zml5Ob5PtkC&redir_esc=y

I posted the relevant part already, if you don't trust then let's leave it at that, I'm not going to discuss stuff with someone that starts from a position of distrust and unconditional contrarianism.
 
Last edited:
Political views are not genetic. If Britain stomps out the Revolution and then properly manages the colonies in the later decades there probably won't be desire for revolution.

Perhaps, but not only does proper management not follow from the defeat of the Revolution, I suspect it would actually be harmed by it. Defeating the rebels would be seen as a validation of the hard line that had been taken from 1767 onwards, so there'd be no perceived impetus for concessions or compromise. Brute force would be seen as perfectly effective, and the alternative would be seen as a show of weakness. If that sounds bullheaded, well, that's obviously the mindset that motivated the partial repeal of the Townsend Acts and the response to Boston, so it'd be willful ignorance to assume that that attitude would just go away.
 
Perhaps, but not only does proper management not follow from the defeat of the Revolution, I suspect it would actually be harmed by it. Defeating the rebels would be seen as a validation of the hard line that had been taken from 1767 onwards, so there'd be no perceived impetus for concessions or compromise. Brute force would be seen as perfectly effective, and the alternative would be seen as a show of weakness. If that sounds bullheaded, well, that's obviously the mindset that motivated the partial repeal of the Townsend Acts and the response to Boston, so it'd be willful ignorance to assume that that attitude would just go away.
I'm pretty sure I explicitly said manage not "give them home rule". Good intelligence efforts, coupled with economic prosperity and good relations with influential groups, will ensure that revolution doesn't become mainstream. Basically the same heavy hand the Canadas were ruled with. That's what I meant by proper management.
 
Eventually they'd get tired of constantly subsidizing so BNA likely gets de facto independence, perhaps around the end of TTL's *napoleonic wars. Say 1820 or so. Some sort of dominion status, or getting an asshat out of the line of succession by sticking him with a palace in Philly or Baltimore, perhaps.
 
Top