How would industrialization have affected the 13 Colonies if they had stayed British?
- Thread starter Sevarics
- Start date
The revolution is inexorably tied up with changes in the composition of capital in the United Kingdom, and particularly, in sugar. The idea that a revolution in the United Kingdom—which is what the American colonies revolution was—is avoidable is frankly absurd.
If it goes down in fire and blood, then it will emerge again, possibly synchronised with the London Mob before Peterloo; and, certainly synchronised with the discontent of the proletariat afterwards.
I'd imagine that the American mobility's class interests rapidly desynchronise with the American colonies' ruling class interests. And the entire UK economy is about to undergo the stress of 30 years of war.
There are strong motivations for industrialisation in the North, particularly with the war having effects similar to independence in trade senses. But this further divides nationalist revolutionary sentiment as class conflict in British America heightens.
If the UK holds the colonies, a general British Territory Wide revolution is likely in the lead up to 1820 due to war stress and the potential for yet-another-failed revolution around 1800-1810.
yours,
Sam R.
The turpentine industry in the South would get a boom without the American Revolution. turpentine was really useful for manufacturing and was a large source of naval stores. But after the war Britain stopped importing Southern turpentine and looked elsewhere for it. That lasted until the 1840's when they started importing again, causing a boom for the industry.
I suspect the result would have been a bit more small-scale industry. Not because of any particular British policy, but because avoiding a seven year civil war, mass emigration, and a temporary halt in immigration would mean everything is initially more developed.
On the other hand, I strongly suspect that the early American textile industry - a much larger-scale concern - would be hamstrung if not outright prevented. It was just too important to Britain to let anyone else in on it if it could at all be prevented.
On the other hand, I strongly suspect that the early American textile industry - a much larger-scale concern - would be hamstrung if not outright prevented. It was just too important to Britain to let anyone else in on it if it could at all be prevented.
This might or might not all be true, but the United Kingdom didn't exist until 1801.
I guess I don't see why revolution is absolutely unavoidable. Sure there were factors that led to it in OTL, but those factors can be avoided.
The real question is how much industrializing could Britain prevent? The examples of India and Ireland demonstrate rather well how far they preferred to take things. In practice, though, their American system didn't allow them the level of direct intervention to impact on small-scale local concerns. They did fairly well at preventing big competing enterprises from springing up, but keeping small towns in Central (then Western) Pennsylvania from having their own ironworks? They couldn't even make a dent.
Barring a complete overhaul of the colonial system to grant greater powers for economic intervention, that's going to be true going forward, even in a defeated ARW timeline. So if they're really going to curtail it as much as they'd like, the reformed system would have to be in place by, oh, say 1750 at the absolute latest.
Being a list Comprehensive of assumptions Taken or Implied without Justification in the above Post:
1. The only way the revolution could have been avoided was by military suppression.
2. The French Revolution is by 1776 inevitable.
3. The French Revolution will necessarily and unavoidably lead to sustained military conflict for 30 years (and by implication include the Coronation of the Corsican).
4. A much stronger and wealthier British sphere would be more susceptible to war exhaustion.
And you appear to be avoiding the crisis in the reproduction of absolutist late early modern Feudalism across Europe; the massive and systemic change in the ordering of the moral economy and the development of the political economy in the British sphere of influence, and sustained economic conflict within the multiple rentier classes of the British sphere of influence, both sectorial and geographic.
Europe is about to go into a period of national warfare regardless of who kicks it off. The British sphere of control has been pressed by a revolutionary crisis since the 1760s in its periphery, and increasingly to 1820 in its centre.
Something is going to happen and it isn't going to be a buy-off of the colonial squatocracy and rentier bourgeoisie due to the sugar profits in parliament.
While Britain wanted the colonies to import British goods, the 13 colonies actually produced as much iron as many nations. I forget the figures, but they were something like the 4th largest iron producer in the world in ... hmmm... 1750, maybe?
I read that statistic long ago, and I don't remember the exact details, and I certainly don't remember the source, but New England was rather more industrialized than one might expect. They were just WAY behind England, like everyone else was.
