Would the US be more or less decentralized under continued long term British rule

[Jiraiyathegallant]

With continued British rule I’m guessing Britain would find it difficult to control a population and enforce edicts in say, the Midwest. It would also be harder to be a representative of the people if you are an ocean away. This could arguably lead to Britain being more hands off than the Federal government and eventually lead to a more state and local oriented culture, especially if Britain leads to a peaceful end to slavery preventing states rights from being associated with slavery.

It also might weaken the idea that the States created the Federal Government, or the identity of rebellion against the Federal Government.

Thoughts?

 

[Lord High Executioner]

Thoughts?

As I foolishly assume that the US under continued long term British rule would be the US that got its independence from it,
I suppose that controlling a population and enforcing edicts in the Midwest would be about as much the headache of Spain
or France (whoever ended up with the unpurchased Louisiana territory)...

Not to mention points further west...

 

[Socrates]

It is a bit of both. The smaller states would likely be consolidated together with stronger state governments. The overall governance for them would probably be Empire-wide. Either Imperial summits like our timelime or some sort of combined EEC/NATO type structure.

 

[Jonathan1997]

I think it's possible that the British move the Imperial capital to the United States I also believe that historically if The British empire move is capital to India and the empire became or India lead than the empire would have continued for more centuries kind of like Romans moving to Byzantium/Constantinople.

 

[N7Buck]

I can't believe there is yet another ARW thread.

"I’m guessing Britain would find it difficult to control a population and enforce edicts in say, the Midwest."
Completely right, Britain didn't have much control over the frontiers of the Thirteen colonies. Britain's relationship with the colonies will quickly grow to be one of cooperation, rather than subordination which was how the British dominions functioned.

"It would also be harder to be a representative of the people if you are an ocean away."
Representation for the colonies would have always been difficult and pointless, because Britain will have little power in the colonies, yet the colonies overall will have big power with Britain. However, there will be countless American lobbyists in London.

"This could arguably lead to Britain being more hands off than the Federal government and eventually lead to a more state and local oriented culture, "
This would be an America without a central government, it would be an empire of free nations, and colonies/states would be significantly more culturally distinct.

"especially if Britain leads to a peaceful end to slavery preventing states rights from being associated with slavery."
With the states/colonies being far more distinct, slavery could start dissipating a lot earlier, due to a different dynamic between north and south, and less common identity among southern colonies/state, however the deep south would probably take longer for slavery to go away.

It is a bit of both. The smaller states would likely be consolidated together with stronger state governments.

I agree, so less power for small states, but overall more power for bigger states.

The overall governance for them would probably be Empire-wide. Either Imperial summits like our timelime or some sort of combined EEC/NATO type structure.

The governance is likely to be focused on imperial policy, with almost no control over domestic issues. I'm not sure how much economic control the empire will have, as imperial preference didn't fair well in otl. And the military is likely to just be the British military, as colonies hated having to pay for defence, although there will be some colonial militia.

I think there will be summits and a large colonial office.

 

[HARRY]

I think more decentralized at the time of the Revolution the British American colonies were already in roughly 4 groupings, the Canadian colonies, the New England colonies, the Middle colonies and the Southern Colonies. If these were formalized into self governing regions with each its own British appointed Governor General to arbitrate internal conflicts they could keep control. As more settlements are built in the interior and native territories recognized they to would be grouped into similar regional districts.

 

[Alstein]

More centralized.

You'd likely see a very different constitution once Dominion status is granted, and it would be. Also, the US would be smaller. The Louisiana Purchase would likely be acquired during Napoleonic wars instead, though you might see faster colonization due to folks fleeing post-rebellion British rule. The US would get crowded pretty quickly though (comparatively)

I do think the Brits would have to put down a 2nd rebellion in the 1820s over Slavery.

 

[Nyegosh]

Less in the sense that a bunch of states/provinces would be abolished or grouped together (the first on the chopping block would be New England) but more in the sense that these larger areas would be more autonomous

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

To buck the trend - I'd say it'd be different, but neither measurably more or less.

I can only see this really working with some sort of tolerable relationship sorted out whether with or without a war, which in my mind would be a sort of regional seperation of powers, with the establishment of a New England Parliament . Whether it is subservient or a partner is really due to time, but I'd wager at first it'd be powerful, but subservient, effectively restricted to a clear area, but fully able to levy taxes, and most powers they'd expect to minus foreign policy (unless granted it for some reason)

In one regard you'd have fewer states, in favour of larger ones. Britain already wanted this, with the Dominion of New England as evidence - but this time one with a Parliament instead of Governor - the cost being the offloading of much of the debt incurred protecting the colonies being transferred so that they can address paying for it themselves rather than being taxed for it. So whilst there may be internal borders, at the highest level its essentially a unitary parliamentary entity

In the other regard, it's more decentralised as I expect the proclamation line would be used as a boundary for New England's authority, with Westminster retaining authority beyond it - if we presume that this British Empire has many of the same interests the US had, then western expansion would probably lead to the model being repeated in time, but still fewer than the states the US has - with the obvious being Canada, Great Lakes, the Mississippi. So in terms of what exists in place of the US - more division because they aren't part of a single government focused on that region, but less divided because there are fewer states to balance.

 

[Nyegosh]

One consequence might be a far higher native population, perhaps even native polities outright. They didn't have much of a problem with modernizing, but were more like drowned out by ludicrous amounts of American settlers. If the British retain control this wave would probably be delayed. This would also cause Mexico to retain everything it owned up to 1848 incl Texas. If butterflies do their job they might even grab the Oregon.

 

[N7Buck]

One consequence might be a far higher native population, perhaps even native polities outright. They didn't have much of a problem with modernizing, but were more like drowned out by ludicrous amounts of American settlers. If the British retain control this wave would probably be delayed. This would also cause Mexico to retain everything it owned up to 1848 incl Texas.

How does Britain stop American settlers from expanding? Without an ARW, there would be an even bigger population in the otl US by 1790.

 

[Lord High Executioner]

How does Britain stop American settlers from expanding?

By recognising the international border with Mexico/Spain/France/Louisiana?
It may not exactly stop the Americans themselves from moving west, but it would hamper the western expansion
of the colonies themselves.

 

[N7Buck]

By recognising the international border with Mexico/Spain/France/Louisiana?
It may not exactly stop the Americans themselves from moving west, but it would hamper the western expansion
of the colonies themselves.

Why would Britain recognise the Louisiana border when it isn't populated. American settlers will expand, and either the Spanish authorities won't be able to stop them, or if they do stop them , it will provoke action from Britain. The relation between Britain and the colonies will not be superior-subordinate, it will be equals.

 

[Lord High Executioner]

Why would Britain recognise the Louisiana border when it isn't populated.

Because they don't want a war?

 

[N7Buck]

But the colonists do want war for western expansion, and if Britain wants to keep the colonies it has to cater to colonial interests.

 

[Socrates]

Because they don't want a war?

Britain wouldn't necessarily be scared of war with France in the mid-1800s. It certainly wouldn't have been in our timeline. And a mass expanse of valuable yet unpopulated French territory ripe for the taking wouldn't exactly change that...

 

[CHKeeley]

I think it's possible that the British move the Imperial capital to the United States I also believe that historically if The British empire move is capital to India and the empire became or India lead than the empire would have continued for more centuries kind of like Romans moving to Byzantium/Constantinople.

I think its incredibly unlikely the British Imperial elite chooses to provincialize the British Isles, the situation is pretty different from the Roman Empire where the court/government could follow the Emperor wherever he pleased..

 

[Jonathan1997]

I think its incredibly unlikely the British Imperial elite chooses to provincialize the British Isles, the situation is pretty different from the Roman Empire where the court/government could follow the Emperor wherever he pleased..

I was pretty much suggested the British empire should have been come the Indian Empire because Britain could not it's empire due to its shire size.

 

[Frrf]

I think it would be both. Much like with Canada and Australia, Whitehall would have no qualms merging small colonies in the interests of more efficient governance, so I would expect to see the thirteen colonies (+maritime Canada) merged into 4/5 entities, but not really any further without a good reason. Canada only confederated because of the threat of the US, while honestly neither Louisiana nor México are serious threats to British North America. If Louisiana is taken, I'd expect a similar process to recur in each reasonably natural region. You certainly wouldn't see the weird square states that comprise much of the US, as generally the British seemed to favour natural borders, and larger colonies where practical. As for the governmental structure of these entities, it would probably depend on local conditions and preferences, as while self government was usually set up on the Westminster model (two chambred parliament - lower house elected by FPP, upper house appointed - with ministers appointed by a governor), after that the Colonial Office tended to stay pretty hands-off and allow things to develop naturally as long as they didn't do anything too out of step with UK policy.

I agree with Svevlad that there could well be more indigenous polities surviving, perhaps as protectorates in a similar vein to the Princely States in India, without the paranoia that US settlers would pull a Texas in every non-white-settled territory. It could end up a very interesting patchwork of different subjects of the Crown, with varying levels of self-government and obligations to the centre.

 

[Avrorrange]

More centralized.

You'd likely see a very different constitution once Dominion status is granted, and it would be. Also, the US would be smaller. The Louisiana Purchase would likely be acquired during Napoleonic wars instead, though you might see faster colonization due to folks fleeing post-rebellion British rule. The US would get crowded pretty quickly though (comparatively)

I do think the Brits would have to put down a 2nd rebellion in the 1820s over Slavery.

I don’t think that Britain would abolish the slave trade as quickly as it did IOTL with the south still having being part of the empire.

I think it would be both. Much like with Canada and Australia, Whitehall would have no qualms merging small colonies in the interests of more efficient governance, so I would expect to see the thirteen colonies (+maritime Canada) merged into 4/5 entities, but not really any further without a good reason. Canada only confederated because of the threat of the US, while honestly neither Louisiana nor México are serious threats to British North America. If Louisiana is taken, I'd expect a similar process to recur in each reasonably natural region. You certainly wouldn't see the weird square states that comprise much of the US, as generally the British seemed to favour natural borders, and larger colonies where practical. As for the governmental structure of these entities, it would probably depend on local conditions and preferences, as while self government was usually set up on the Westminster model (two chambred parliament - lower house elected by FPP, upper house appointed - with ministers appointed by a governor), after that the Colonial Office tended to stay pretty hands-off and allow things to develop naturally as long as they didn't do anything too out of step with UK policy.

I agree with Svevlad that there could well be more indigenous polities surviving, perhaps as protectorates in a similar vein to the Princely States in India, without the paranoia that US settlers would pull a Texas in every non-white-settled territory. It could end up a very interesting patchwork of different subjects of the Crown, with varying levels of self-government and obligations to the centre.

I think Britain’s going to merge some of the colonies because they are gonna get tired of the disputes between them.