No American Revolution - relation between NA and Britain

[Paul Spring]

Suppose there is no American Revolution, or the American Revolution fails. Lots of people have suggested this, but I'm curious about the long-term implications.

Well, chances are that most or all of what is now the United States and Canada will be British territory. Unless the British decide to go with a pretty draconian policy of discouraging industrial or commercial development, sort of like in Ireland on much larger scale, the various British colonies or dominions or kingdoms or confederations in North America are probably going to go through pretty rapid economic development in the 19th century.

By the later 19th century, Britain is going to facing an issue that it did not face in OTL - part of its colonial empire will have a greater industrial base than Britain itself. By the early 20th century, the North American part of the empire might begin to rival the mother country financially. What would this most likely mean for Britain, North America, and the rest of the British Empire?

 

[Nicole]

Unless the British decide to go with a pretty draconian policy of discouraging industrial or commercial development,

They tried to do this with industrialization OTL, if I recall right.

 

[Thande]

Well, chances are that most or all of what is now the United States and Canada will be British territory. Unless the British decide to go with a pretty draconian policy of discouraging industrial or commercial development, sort of like in Ireland on much larger scale,

We didn't really discourage industrial and commercial development in Ireland. It did happen slower than in Britain, but that's mainly because the country wasn't as well developed as Britain to begin with.

The only place I know of where we deliberately discouraged local industry is India, not for Evil Imperialistic Reasons(tm) as such but mainly to stop them outcompeting our own factories and to ensure that trade remained profitable.

By the later 19th century, Britain is going to facing an issue that it did not face in OTL - part of its colonial empire will have a greater industrial base than Britain itself. By the early 20th century, the North American part of the empire might begin to rival the mother country financially. What would this most likely mean for Britain, North America, and the rest of the British Empire?

I have considered this. Population is also an issue, of course. Presuming someone far-sighted enough to realise the future implications is in power in Britain early enough - not too implausible - the correct approach would be to try and avoid an 'American' identity, i.e. the various dominions or kingdoms or whatever should not see themselves as more similar to each other than to Britain.

I'm working on a timeline that includes the American colonies remaining loyal (it's not the actual POD, though) and my current ideas consist of dividing up the 1760 American lands into three new Kingdoms: Virginia, New England (using the Mason-Dixon line if it's not too anachronistic) and Canada. I don't think individual Colonies would be big enough to count as Kingdoms, and counting them as Counties wouldn't make sense when they're themselves made up of counties.

 

[Nosb]

Probably, Britain well discourage or otherwise limit immigration from other European nations, mostly from Germany, where the majority of present-day American ancestry comes from. Before too long Britain well cut the Americans lose, but probably as several nations and still limited to east of Mississippi. Pick up For Want of a Nail.

 

[Thande]

Probably, Britain well discourage or otherwise limit immigration from other European nations, mostly from Germany,

Really doubt that - American concern with German immigration which Britain refused to do anything to stop was one of the causes of the Revolution, IIRC.

 

[Paul Spring]

I have considered this. Population is also an issue, of course. Presuming someone far-sighted enough to realise the future implications is in power in Britain early enough - not too implausible - the correct approach would be to try and avoid an 'American' identity, i.e. the various dominions or kingdoms or whatever should not see themselves as more similar to each other than to Britain.

I'm working on a timeline that includes the American colonies remaining loyal (it's not the actual POD, though) and my current ideas consist of dividing up the 1760 American lands into three new Kingdoms: Virginia, New England (using the Mason-Dixon line if it's not too anachronistic) and Canada. I don't think individual Colonies would be big enough to count as Kingdoms, and counting them as Counties wouldn't make sense when they're themselves made up of counties.

That's what Britain wanted to do in OTL. Up until the 1760s, they didn't have to try very hard, since the various colonies didn't have a common identity anyways - too much difference in ethnic and religious makeup, economic basis, and social structure.

On the other hand, I would tend to think that with the growth of railroads, telegraphs, etc., it might be difficult to prevent some sort of "American" identity from emerging, at least in a vague and general sense, as people move around and news travels faster. The attitude of the British governments will be important - they will have to try and avoid doing anything that would create opposition in all of the American colonies at once, like what happened with the Stamp Act and various tax and military measures in the 1760s and 1770s. Either that, or they will have to be prepared to deal with a lot of opposition.

By the early 20th century, though, even a smaller North American kingdom might rival the UK industrially. I remember reading that in the 1920s the US city of Pittsburgh alone produced more steel than was produced in the entire UK. Germany was the only country other than the US that outproduced the city of Pittsburgh in steel.

One question - if North America was divided into Kingdoms, would these simply be ruled by the King or Queen of Great Britain, with the monarch simply adding more titles, or would they be ruled by offshoots or junior branches of the British royal family?

 

[Thande]

The attitude of the British governments will be important - they will have to try and avoid doing anything that would create opposition in all of the American colonies at once, like what happened with the Stamp Act and various tax and military measures in the 1760s and 1770s.

Turn it around - there are plenty of issues that could drive a wedge between any American kingdoms, too. Obvious one is slavery - just because we managed to ban it in the 1830s OTL doesn't mean we'll be able to force the southern colonies to do it then. You could see a sort of miniature civil war, not necessarily going into armed conflict, but with a similar 'I'm not with them' attitude among the northern colonies.

One question - if North America was divided into Kingdoms, would these simply be ruled by the King or Queen of Great Britain, with the monarch simply adding more titles, or would they be ruled by offshoots or junior branches of the British royal family?

I'm intending that they be ruled directly by the King or Queen, though this may change later. Obviously they would need a viceroy on the ground to give Royal Assent to any laws passed by the American kingdoms' parliaments, so I suspect we could see the appointment of Lords Lieutenant. (Not Governor-General, as HT suggested, because at the time I believe that title was only used for India).

My model for all this is the Irish parliamentary system between the 1780s and 1801, in which Ireland was a separate (though dependent) kingdom of Great Britain, with its own parliament and Lord Lieutenant, and George III was 'King of Great Britain, King of Ireland, Elector of Hanover'.

 

[Thande]

To clarify my last post: I mean that the Irish system will be the original inspiration (or parallel inspiration) for the American one, but due to the greater separation and distance issues (particularly before the telegraph) the American kingdoms will not be so dependent on GB as Ireland was.

 

[PubliusQuinctiliusVarus]

Probably, Britain well discourage or otherwise limit immigration from other European nations, mostly from Germany, where the majority of present-day American ancestry comes from. Pick up For Want of a Nail.

Far from it, Britain considered immigration as essential to homeland and empire development (indeed, withouth immigration the industrial revolution would not have been as dynamic as it was). Industrialist Prussians and Swedes, Craftsmen of the Low Lands and non republican French were major elements to British industrialisation and the growth of Empire. With such a vast, empty land to fill with loyal citizens (subjects?) Britain would have no reason to hinder immigration from other European peoples.

Oh...and For Want of a Nail is a must.

There is a famous quote (the origin or whereabouts its from is for the moment lost to me) of an American colonist protesting the tramping feet of Prussian Soldiers during the rebellion that..."An Englishmans Home Is His Castle" The American colonies would have been far more loyal than the Irish even given the increased distance.

 

[Norman]

Really doubt that - American concern with German immigration which Britain refused to do anything to stop was one of the causes of the Revolution, IIRC.

I agree, remember, many of the German immigrants before 1840 came out of or through Hanover, and Hanover was ruled by English kings for many years. It seems to me if anything they might have encouraged German migration.

 

[Nicole]

For quite some time, even into the early Revolution, the colonists saw themselves as Englishmen- indeed, the early revolutionary gestures were always backed up by the fact that as Englishmen, the colonists felt that they had the rights of Englishmen (and if they wanted both the rights, and to have less taxes, there's nothing wrong with that either )

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that assuming that the American Revolution is outright eliminated (As opposed to failing) and groups like the Sons of Liberty remain on the fringe, an American identity does not necessarily have to develop- indeed, I could easily see the Anglo-Americans keeping a solely English identity. Of course, if there was a revoulution that wet past the Declaration of Independence, the idea of an American identity will have been born, and it will be hard to stop.

 

[David S Poepoe]

One question - if North America was divided into Kingdoms, would these simply be ruled by the King or Queen of Great Britain, with the monarch simply adding more titles, or would they be ruled by offshoots or junior branches of the British royal family?

This is one ATL aspect that I have never been able to understand, particularly since there are no historical precedents. Such a division would actually spur the division of the Empire itself.

 

[Pax Britannia]

I've always thought BNA would just be like Canada on a larger scale. I doubt it would develop into the industrial juggernaught that we know.

 

[Imperator]

Why would the colonies want to be consolidated into kingdoms? There was little common national identity back then, but every colony was very protective of its sovereignty (eg Rhode Island). I'm not sure the colonies would be very happy as unitary monarchies.

 

[Smaug]

I find the remark above that England didn't try to suppress industrialisation in its colonies to be incorrect. It was somewhat of an English Mantra that raw materials would flow into the home country, and finnished goods would leave, with the proper duties paid to the crown, and of course the goods were shipped on English/British ships. Exceptions such as Opium for China did exist, and growing tea in India, but for the most part, England wanted to keep its colonies as dependent as possible. JMO

 

[PubliusQuinctiliusVarus]

I find the remark above that England didn't try to suppress industrialisation in its colonies to be incorrect. It was somewhat of an English Mantra that raw materials would flow into the home country, and finnished goods would leave, with the proper duties paid to the crown, and of course the goods were shipped on English/British ships. Exceptions such as Opium for China did exist, and growing tea in India, but for the most part, England wanted to keep its colonies as dependent as possible. JMO

England most certainly would not have supressed industrialisation in North America under these circumstances. Industrialisation was an essential part of the promoted growth of Canada, Australia and, to a lesser extent, South Africa. In all those cases their industrialiastion was indeed shaped to best "exploit" or market the materials available...so timber from Canada, Metals from South Africa etc...but industralisation was important. Had American colonies remained within the empire they would have been essential parts of the industrialisation process...a never ending stream of iron, steel, timber, machine goods...it just wouldnt make sense for Britain NOT to promote industrialisation in those circumstances.

Indeed, as the market grew, demand would soon outstrip British Industrial capacity (as it did in OTL), so would need the power of the loyal American Industrialisits to continue the British Empires dominance.

 

[Darkling]

I find the remark above that England didn't try to suppress industrialisation in its colonies to be incorrect. It was somewhat of an English Mantra that raw materials would flow into the home country, and finnished goods would leave, with the proper duties paid to the crown, and of course the goods were shipped on English/British ships. Exceptions such as Opium for China did exist, and growing tea in India, but for the most part, England wanted to keep its colonies as dependent as possible. JMO

Under the mercantile system the idea was to get everybody to do what they were best at, Britain made the manufactured goods, the Carrie grew sugar and the various American colonies made timber, fish for the Caribbean, wheat, rice and indigo (the Britsih even directed subsidised, with tax money, some of these colonial industries, meaning the Britsih government was actually paying into the colonial economy).

However when Britain adopts free trade policy this would go and anybody in the Empire would be able to do what the wanted, the big worry for Colonial industry would be if they were prevented from erecting large tariff walls (as the US did in OTL) and that it is unlikely that northern industrial areas will be able to tax the exports of southern cotton in order to subsidise the creation of industry.

This may retard industrial development in North America somewhat (whilst increasing it in Britain) but eventually it would get going, perhaps we see the overtake point a decade or two later with the financial overtake point several decades after that (since all that industry would be owned by the city which likely stays as the Worlds financial capital).

On the subject of India, things stayed as they were because the company ran the area, although Indian industry couldn't compete with British industry once the industrial revolution took off.

Eventually, some time after the crown took over India, tariffs were actually put in place to protect Indian industry form Britsih.

 

[Darkling]

Of course, if there was a revoulution that wet past the Declaration of Independence, the idea of an American identity will have been born, and it will be hard to stop.

The American identity was still fairly anaemic (one could argue it still is today compared to nation states but that's an argument for another time).

We have the possibility of the New England secession in 1814 and the general complete lack of enthusiasm for the war of 1812, just thirty years after the revolution.
There was all the flirting with interstate conflict in the immediate aftermath of the revolution and the flirting with foreign powers do during this time (Vermont with Britain, Kentucky and Tennessee with Spain).
Even by the time of the civil war almost a century after the DOI we have many people considering them self "insert state here" first and picking their side accordingly.

This was all with a successful revolution, it is quite possible that a failed one will discredit the idea of American unity (although it is also possible things go the other way depending upon how the Britsih handle it) especially if the defeat makes for easy scape goating (those damn New Englanders never did anything to help the South which led to the eventually reconquest, those Marylanders gave in far to easily to the British showing obvious disloyalty etc).

Of course a vague sense of being American doesn't really matter as long as they still consider themselves British as well and the key is that being American isn't formed in opposition to being a loyal subject of the Empire.

 

[67th Tigers]

Makes sense, dividing into something like:

The Dominion of Canada (i.e. Ontario and Quebec, probably later including Michigan etc. as it expands west)

The Dominion of New England (New Jersey and Pennsylvania north upto Maine, probably including Nova Scotia etc. as well)

The Dominion of Virginia (the Chesapeake Bay settlements and their hinterlands, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, Kentucky etc.)

A 4th dominion in the deep south?

 

[Nicole]

I've never understood why the colonies would be consolidated at all...