Would there have been a civil war if America was a British dominion?

And finally in OT cotton prices hit bottom in 1830. You cant just say "butterflies!" to make cotton prices riser earlier , you need to give some sort of reason .

With a PoD more than a half century in the past, it's equally as unjustified to say something as specific as cotton prices will move in the same way at the same time.
 
And ?



Also while the OP uses the term dominion I dont know what he intends by Dominion. Does he use it as a generic term for colony or as an actual political status ?

.

The term "dominion" does not refer to "a generic term for colony". British dominions were self governing polities within the empire.
 
The term "dominion" does not refer to "a generic term for colony". British dominions were self governing polities within the empire.

Now it does.

Not originally

Dominion as an official title was conferred on the Colony of Virginia about 1660, and on the Dominion of New England in 1686. These dominions never had self-governing status. The creation of the short-lived Dominion of New England was designed – contrary to the purpose of later dominions – to increase royal control and to reduce the colony's self-government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion
 
With a PoD more than a half century in the past, it's equally as unjustified to say something as specific as cotton prices will move in the same way at the same time.

Well you could just as easily say Cotton prices will be worse and lower than originally, driving the South into bankruptcy.

I find adhering to known facts to be the least contentious course of action as cotton prices were probably more driven by the Industrial Revolution than the success/failure of the American revolution.
 
Yeah I'm gonna need a source more trustworthy than wikipedia.


You know this isnt some esoteric information that isnt easily verifiable .

Collier's Encyclopedia 1977 edition Vol 8 pg 339 "Dominion of New England" has the precise same information .

Short version.
In response to their ignoring the Navigation Acts the charters and governments of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Plymouth, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, East Jersey and West Jersey were annulled and all merged into the Dominion of New England from 1685 to 1689

All authority was handed to the Governor Sir Edmund Andros .

The Dominion was eventually broken up with the overthrow of James II.
 
Last edited:
Well you could just as easily say Cotton prices will be worse and lower than originally, driving the South into bankruptcy.

Yeah, you could. The point is that butterflies make it so something going EXACTLY the same fifty years after the PoD is incredibly unlikely. Something as specific as movements in cotton prices being exactly the same after fifty years of divergence is nearly ASB.
 
Yeah, you could. The point is that butterflies make it so something going EXACTLY the same fifty years after the PoD is incredibly unlikely. Something as specific as movements in cotton prices being exactly the same after fifty years of divergence is nearly ASB.

Unless of course the price of cotton had more to do with surpluses from the Southern USA not being utilized by Europe causing a glut until

1. the Industrial revolution mechanized weaving sufficiently to use the cotton faster than it was being produced.

2. India (and to a lesser extent China)was opened as a market for European textiles.


How does American non-Independence affect the above ?
 
Unless of course the price of cotton had more to do with surpluses from the Southern USA not being utilized by Europe causing a glut until

1. the Industrial revolution mechanized weaving sufficiently to use the cotton faster than it was being produced.

2. India (and to a lesser extent China)was opened as a market for European textiles.


How does American non-Independence affect the above ?

Because specific price movements at specific times have a lot more to do with specific factors occurring around those specific times than more general, long-run trends. The price of cotton in 1830 has a lot more to do with the trade cycle as it existed in the 1820's and 1830's than it does to do with industrial revolution over the course of the 19th century. To say the trade cycle in this time period will be EXACTLY the same after half a century of divergence is ridiculous.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Everyone said:
Butterfly-cluster-wang-measuring-over-the-price-of-cotton

Alright, can we end this side-lining over the concept of butterflies with one very important point regarding the cotton industry timeline.

Europeans are already entering India before the PoD could possibly have existed. India is also a huge source of cotton, and cloth - and because the Empire is the Empire, tariffs will most likely be put in place so that the Indian territories becomes a huge raw cotton producer, because Britain wants to produce the cloth itself. (Unless of course something very different happens with the Company Raj - i.e. Company Raj turned into the Dominion(s) of India - I like the idea btw, but unlikely in the short term IMO).

Supply goes up, demand remains the same - prices go down, making American cotton less profitable. Now I don't understand personally why American slave-cotton was more expensive to produce than Indian slave, and non-slave cotton - but it was.

I'd like to add that there is an important part of the PoD that would be useful to know.

1) Was there a violent rebellion?

2) If there was, did France help?

3) If France did help, did it cause the same economic problems that led to the French revolution?

The reason I ask is that if all the answers to these are "Yes", then there is every chance that what OTL was the French Revolution could very well happen ITTL - opening the possibility for Britain to take South Africa.

Furthermore, if we seem an American Dominion, will any African territories, Irish, or Indian Territories want this status? Will it become a thing? Knowing this is useful, as it adds political debates and changes in political focus to be understood better. Hell, if we have an Indian dominion, then the former members of the Company (or the company itself) could rebel, making the problem much more complex.
 
If America becomes a dominion,there will probably be two American dominions,one in the North and one in the South.I think the colonies would prefer two dominions set up instead of one given the geographical area's a bit large.
 
Lawyered

There is no fixed definition of a what a dominion is.

However changing from the previous colonial status and entering into a new relationship with the crown requires both parties to agree to the change. T

he early Australian colonial charters are quite specific in setting out the relation between the colony and crown, much more than the American ones and are likely to be the model ( its basically colony is chartered, its assembly is allowed to pass laws as are necessary that are not REPUGNANT to English law, and the colony supreme court is equal in status to the Court of Kings Bench

English Law from at the latest 1772 with Somerset and arguably from Time Immemorial is quite clear.

It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law

Any change in the Colonial status requires the consent of Parliament. Under English law ( and see the bit about repugnant laws) slavery can only exist where there is a positive law permitting it so Parliament would have to approve a law permitting slavery.

That makes it a very big deal.

In all probability the issue of slavery on continental north america at least is resolved in favour of abolition as part of the Dominion negotiations or the suppression of Slavers Rebellion that follows. And in the 1770s cotton is not a factor on the mainland.

If they get everything else what possible reason do the yeoman farmers ( i.e. the infantry) of New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania have for fighting FOR slavery in Virginia and points south?

India is a done deal and I suspect the improved status of North America ( anyway) means first fleet still goes to Australia.

Biggest Butterfly is probably France and thw French Revolution.

India BTW is a done deal
 
It dies a natural death. Britain defeats the AR and compromises with some representation. They still go into India with the EIC, where cotton is much cheaper. They most likely go to Egypt as well. Eventually the world buys cheap Indian cotton and plantations in the south go bankrupt, creating a class of poor white and black Southron farmers. This with increased pressure from Northerners to stop it, as well as industrialisation by Northern/British industrialists and their theories of free labour slavery eventually gets abolished without much resistance, compensating the remaining plantation holders. I dont see slaves working in factories, since it conflicts with the free labour theories. Probably it gets abolished somewhere in the early 1850's. I could see the poor white and black farmers and factory workers becoming a bastion for the Labour Party, 'protecting domestic production' and stuff you dont really see in the south IOTL.

However this could mean that slavery lasts longer in India. My knowedge on India in this period is zero however so I cant say anything on that part.
 
In all probability the issue of slavery on continental north america at least is resolved in favour of abolition as part of the Dominion negotiations or the suppression of Slavers Rebellion that follows. And in the 1770s cotton is not a factor on the mainland.

I doubt this. Britain showed no inclination to abolish slavery in its colonies anywhere else prior to the 1830s, so I don't see why they'd do so in North America. Incidentally, tobacco was also a major cash crop, as were rice and indigo. Cotton eventually became the largest but was never the only one.

I don't think legal issues would be a concern. The legal definition of "dominion" ITTL would contain provisions allowing for certain local laws to apply.

It dies a natural death. Britain defeats the AR and compromises with some representation. They still go into India with the EIC, where cotton is much cheaper.

IOTL the British (and Europeans in general) bought lots of Southern cotton even though they also controlled India. Why, if the South is part of the British Empire, would its cotton industry fare worse? It would be cheaper still, with no tariffs.
 
Last edited:
Top