Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USA Stays British after 1776.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • USA Stays British after 1776.

    Britain and US agree on limited devolution. Washington becomes first Prime Minister of US Parliament. US states get representation in London Parliament. Stamp Tax Etc... are abolished.

    What Happens.

  • #2
    We continue to fawn over a monarchy that has used and abused us. Bow down to the crown??? Let the crown bow down and meet the ax.
    "Ask not what your country can do for you"

    Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

    you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

    Comment


    • #3
      Canada is integrated into American Parliament....since now there's no reason to have a 'canada' with the Americas already having their parliament.
      Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
        Canada is integrated into American Parliament....since now there's no reason to have a 'canada' with the Americas already having their parliament.
        Good point, at a certain point USA/Canada would become independent anyway. But what about the Louisiana Purchase, I can not see France selling the area to the UK, however the colonies probably would have taken over the region during and after the Napoleonic wars. Also Immigration to the US would have probably been less attractive to many immigrants.

        Also, the UK banned slavery prior to 1861, this could have prevented a US civil war.

        The American ship industry may have proved important against Napoleon, but the UK beat him at sea anyway.

        If this situation had been maintained during WW1, the outcome may have been very different.

        Comment


        • #5
          You wouldn't be saying 'mom' and 'favor'. There would be pavements in Manhattan, not sidewalks ... and you wouldn't be saying 'alooominum' instead of aluminium' and there would be no such things as peanut butter and jello sandwiches!

          You would play proper games like Rugby and Football (you know - where they kick the ball with their foot? ) and cricket.




          (We love you really)



          On a (slightly) more serious note .... It's worth considering that 'American' didn't mean so much back then.

          With America firmly 'English', the great immigration waves might never have happened. Why would the crown/Empire want the American colony flooded with undesirables from Europe - (don't forget these people were traditional enemies)?

          In historical terms many millions made the crossing, swelling the 'American population' and providing the muscle to fight the British. Simultaneously, they relieved pressure in Europe, allowing the most discontented Europeans to leave the continent instead of partaking in further revolutions.

          So if you'd stayed Brit instead of kicking us out - there would be an America with a much lower population and that population would be predominantly English/British. The Pacific coast (possibly) would have been colonised by others - Spain, Russia maybe ... so the map of America would be vastly different from what it is today?

          I dunno, very interesting question really, and one I've not thought a great deal about ... as is probably obvious from my answer lol.

          I'll get me coat.
          "COOMMAAAAAAANNNNDOOOO!!!!!"
          - Mad Jack Churchill.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Tuck's Luck View Post
            The Pacific coast (possibly) would have been colonised by others - Spain, Russia maybe ... so the map of America would be vastly different from what it is today?
            Pretty doubtful on both accounts. All of Russia's attempts at North America were expensive failures, it is just too far from populated Russia, and Spain was quickly losing her ability to control her possessions in the New World, if anything you are looking at a much bigger Mexico.
            Кто там?
            Это я - Почтальон Печкин!
            Tunis is a Carthigenian city!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Stryker 19K30 View Post
              Pretty doubtful on both accounts. All of Russia's attempts at North America were expensive failures, it is just too far from populated Russia, and Spain was quickly losing her ability to control her possessions in the New World, if anything you are looking at a much bigger Mexico.
              You're probably right. I was just thinking out loud really, and then realised I didn't have much of a clue. It's a very interesting question ... one I've certainly never thought about before.
              "COOMMAAAAAAANNNNDOOOO!!!!!"
              - Mad Jack Churchill.

              Comment


              • #8
                I had a book on this that, although wide the mark in many regards, was insightful and plausble, it was a fiction book made up short stories contributed by different authors, it was called Colombia and Britannia. There was a better 'What if' of this in a chapter of the actual What if books, which were the work of historians, as I recall.

                Edit; there was also the 'What If; America' book which was entirely dedicated to alternate historical happenins in the US.

                You'd probably be able to get a decent cut suit.
                ------
                'I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.' - Thomas Jefferson

                If you have questions about the forum please check the FAQ/Rules

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                  Canada is integrated into American Parliament....since now there's no reason to have a 'canada' with the Americas already having their parliament.
                  Maybe, it begs the question of what becomes of Quebec (Lower Canada), as it would have been difficult for the United States to swallow it. They would have demanded language and cultural rights or rebellion. Nova Scotia as part of the New England States seems highly likely, they are mostly Red Sox and Bruins fans as it is. Upper Canada (not populated by United Empire Loyalists) seems natural to join in. Newfoundland didn't join Canada until 1949, so its' status may be be in doubt for a while.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tuck's Luck View Post

                    With America firmly 'English', the great immigration waves might never have happened. Why would the crown/Empire want the American colony flooded with undesirables from Europe - (don't forget these people were traditional enemies)?

                    In historical terms many millions made the crossing, swelling the 'American population' and providing the muscle to fight the British. Simultaneously, they relieved pressure in Europe, allowing the most discontented Europeans to leave the continent instead of partaking in further revolutions.

                    So if you'd stayed Brit instead of kicking us out - there would be an America with a much lower population and that population would be predominantly English/British. The Pacific coast (possibly) would have been colonised by others - Spain, Russia maybe ... so the map of America would be vastly different from what it is today?

                    I dunno, very interesting question really, and one I've not thought a great deal about ... as is probably obvious from my answer lol.

                    I'll get me coat.
                    Cant automatically assume the non Brit immigrations would not happen. There had already been a large German immigration and the Atlantic ports had a fair size population of southern Europeans coming and going. The 19th Century also saw a steady stream of dusky skinned sorts getting off the boat in the ports of the UK. Development of the the US provided a huge economic incentive or imperative for cheap labor which led to emmigration. To much restriction of incoming labor will run counter to the desire of London investors/banks to maximize growth and profits in North America.

                    If the North American Dominions remain a dumping ground for the undesirables of the UK then the initial growth of the Australian cololnies might be slower?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
                      Cant automatically assume the non Brit immigrations would not happen. There had already been a large German immigration and the Atlantic ports had a fair size population of southern Europeans coming and going. The 19th Century also saw a steady stream of dusky skinned sorts getting off the boat in the ports of the UK. Development of the the US provided a huge economic incentive or imperative for cheap labor which led to emmigration. To much restriction of incoming labor will run counter to the desire of London investors/banks to maximize growth and profits in North America.

                      If the North American Dominions remain a dumping ground for the undesirables of the UK then the initial growth of the Australian cololnies might be slower?
                      I know Carl, I should probably delete my rather nonsensical post - as I say, I was just sort of thinking out loud - it's not something I've even considered before and I should have given it a lot more thought and waited for more responses before replying.

                      I realise most of what I've written is rubbish - apart from the peanut butter and jello ... and the football.
                      "COOMMAAAAAAANNNNDOOOO!!!!!"
                      - Mad Jack Churchill.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        No mate, no post is wasted it all helps any discussion, don't delete

                        I personally believe that if Lessons had not been learnt by losing the US, the British within their state psyche, would not have gotten better at running and establishing these things, so the Empire would not have been as large as it ultimately was.
                        ------
                        'I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.' - Thomas Jefferson

                        If you have questions about the forum please check the FAQ/Rules

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Like Canada, immigration is far more limited under British rule as a 'colony' / Commonwealth. Mexico, Russia, and a few independent states like Texas spring up in place of what became the United States. Britain's control of the US basically has the impact of reducing and limiting the economic development and expansion of the nation to just that necessary to British interests. There is no imperative on the part of Americans to gain control over much of the continent as their focus is towards Europe not California so-to-speak.
                          For example, agriculture would have been of much greater importance to England than manufacturing. The end of slavery earlier would have forced the bigger agri-business owners into getting their need for cheap labor from a free workforce. Because wages stay low there is less capital to invest locally.
                          When railways start being developed their focus is on moving goods to ports for shipment to England and other parts of the Empire not on internal expansion or development.

                          Russia retains Alaska (England having little interest) and parts of the NorthWest Pacific coast as colonies. This is simply due to no competition to take them over or buy them out. They may languish largely unoccupied but it would still be Russian territory.
                          Mexico owns much more of the North American west and Texas remains an independent nation after a civil war. Santa Ana could be assumed to still allow large numbers of settlers in to populate the area. The two would likely be mildly hostile to each other. England might even have to take sides in some of their conflicts. I'd assume as an ally of Texas....

                          The waves of German, Italian, and Eastern Europeans to America doesn't happen either so the population stays much lower as it does in Canada.
                          Some Indian tribes manage to actually form states or nations too. I could see the Cherokee managing this at some point, possibly one or more of the Great Lakes or Plains tribes doing the same once they see the Cherokee manage it.
                          Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 03 Jun 12, 13:40.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Continental expansion in the Empire, such as it happened, was invariably private venture; first the HEIC, then Cecil Rhodes. So whilst Britain as a polity was usually expansionist by sea, it is certainly not beyond the pail to see a great trek west or, because of Indian action perhaps, an expanding of British American borders west.
                            ------
                            'I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.' - Thomas Jefferson

                            If you have questions about the forum please check the FAQ/Rules

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Don't agree at all with the lower immigration rate, at least well into the 19th Century. As noted, German immigration was quite high even in the 18th century (particularly in Pa.---Germantown then outside the city of Philadelphia and many farming areas. Why would Irish immigration be effected at all?

                              Russian continued preence in North America also seems highly dubious. Westward expansion of British N. A. was, rmember, a key colonial complaint and would doubtless generally continue under any continued association agreement. Russian meaningful colonialization from European Russia all across Asia and the North Pacific seems highlyt unlikely before the 20th century.

                              Two areas of interest touched on would be 1) slavery elimination-quite possible, especially since post cotton gin production mainly went to industrializing Britain, giving great persuasive ability to some form of emancipation, and remember the mostly but not all symbolic anti-slavery sentiments in Virginia (with GW freeing most slaves at his wife's death in his will). 2) Assume no Spanish-American War and you could have a North American realm of present day U.S. and Canada minus california, Arizona, NM.

                              Of course, there is the Quebecois question.

                              I'm assuming eventually an autonomous North American parliament or an Australian/N.Z. Commonwealth solution to prevent Great Britain from being numerically swamped.

                              All around bad news for Imperial Germany though, unless Bismarck could persuade his countrymen NOT to demand an Alsace-Lorraine problem. Then a Germany-France-Russia axis could be interesting vs. the ESU (English Speaking Union).

                              And btw, what happens to Hawaii?

                              Another point, Japan? How would the scenario effect Japanese industrialization and militarization?
                              Last edited by Tuor; 03 Jun 12, 14:44.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X