British Empire in America

[Georgie Porgie]

Lets imagine that the ARW doesn't happen and that France looses Louisiana in the Napoleonic Wars (a second French-Indian War).

My questions are:
1) What happens to India? Is it still given the resources that it gets in OTL?
2) Does UK still press for territory in Africa?
3) What about Australia / New Zealand - Cook's voyages took place before the ARW, do the Brit's still settle the land or is it left to others. If so who?
4) What happens to Canada? Lots of royalist US citizens left after the ARW to settle Canada, how would it develop with the ARW and 1812 war.

Many thanks for any answers!

 

[TheKnightIrish]

Lets imagine that the ARW doesn't happen and that France looses Louisiana in the Napoleonic Wars (a second French-Indian War).

My questions are:
1) What happens to India? Is it still given the resources that it gets in OTL?
2) Does UK still press for territory in Africa?
3) What about Australia / New Zealand - Cook's voyages took place before the ARW, do the Brit's still settle the land or is it left to others. If so who?
4) What happens to Canada? Lots of royalist US citizens left after the ARW to settle Canada, how would it develop with the ARW and 1812 war.

Many thanks for any answers!

1) The trade of the East India Company will not be any less important with a British Empire in North America. In fact assuming American tastes continue to follow British tastes there maybe more demand for the East India Company's goods. Bear in mind the extension of British influence in India would remain Company policy rather than British Government policy for many years to come anyway.

2) So long as the India and China trade depends on 'rounding the Cape of Good Hope, Britain will have an active interest in the Cape and in having safe harbours (and later coaling stations) at strategic points on the African coast. If the Napoleonic War doesn't deviate to much from history, Britain may still take and keep the Cape Colony from the Dutch.

3) British North America was already not very keen on accepting British criminals. Transportation was however a handy way to get rid of the nation's unwashed and undesirable. I can still see penal colonies in Australia.

4) This is the only one I am not sure about. Quebec will not be keen on any kind of broad confederation which would swamp its influence. But I really have not idea of the extension to which the Canadian colonies saw themselves collectively as being distinct from the 13 "American" colonies. The impression I get is that all the colonies viewed themselves as distinct from all the other colonies!

 

[mikegold]

4) This is the only one I am not sure about. Quebec will not be keen on any kind of broad confederation which would swamp its influence. But I really have not idea of the extension to which the Canadian colonies saw themselves collectively as being distinct from the 13 "American" colonies. The impression I get is that all the colonies viewed themselves as distinct from all the other colonies!

That's certainly true before the abortive Dominion of New England, and particularly before the 1754 Albany Plan of Union. By the 1760s-70s, the seeds of American unity exist and certainly people like Franklin considered there to be a common American identity.

However, a pre-1775 POD is still early enough to butterfly a more universal concept of a common American identity. You could easily end up with several distinct regional identities, or just a common identity as British Imperial citizens, depending on developments. The 1775-1800 period will be critical.

And as far as (what we now call) Canada - French Canadians still saw themselves as French, especially before the French Revolution. Nova Scotia remained a typical if slightly peripheral Atlantic colony; if no international border springs up in the area, it will probably join in whatever common identity New Englanders develop. OTL Ontario will depend entirely on post-POD patterns of settlement.

 

[Umbric Man]

Adding to what Mikegold said, most Anglos who settled in Ontario were from the Middle Colonies. As Yankees and Mid-Atlantic staters moved west into upstate New York and Michigan there's a fair chance that the Anglo-Americans will continue moving westward, directly, into Ontario. A lot of 'late loyalists' did do just that from 1791-1812, after all, outnumbering the loyalists proper.

Agreed also with him on Nova Scotia (and PEI) becoming part of New England proper. These colonies were just as 'American' as any other at the time and indeed a large bout of their first English settlement were actually Yankees from below than settlers directly from the British Isles.

 

[telynk]

Without the ARW and the Loyalists, I doubt we'd get OTL Ontario forming. Until 1791, OTL Ontario and Quebec (and a large part of the midwest - see map below) were united as the "Province of Quebec" governed from Quebec City. While I'm sure we'd see some flow of settlers across the St. Lawrence and Niagara rivers, I'm not sure if there'd be enough of a critical mass to separate Upper and Lower Canada, at least not along the Ottawa River as was done OTL. Without the separation, there would eventually be enough population pressure that the Candiens would move West and more densely settle the Ottawa valley and the North shore of Lake Ontario (where a small number of francophones had already settled).

So, my guess is that *Ontario North and East of Lake Simcoe-ish would remain culturally and linguistically tied to Quebec City. What is known in our TL as Southwestern Ontario from the Niagara penninsula to Lake St. Clair I'm guessing would still likely wind up with an anglo majority by 1830-ish, and may end up separating from Quebec and forming their own ango-dominated colony, likely together with the parts of the midwest that had belonged to the Province of Quebec.

 

[telynk]

Oh, and the bit about Nova Scotia going along with New England I think is right on. Until the Intercolonial Railway was built in the 1870s Nova Scotians had a much easier time travelling to New England than they did to Upper and Lower Canada, and, because of this ended up sharing in a lot of New England culture, especially New England maritime culture. I think Nova Scotia may even have been considered to be one of the "New England colonies" prior to the ARW although I'm not entirely sure (I'm guessing the Scots in Nova Scotia would have been resentful of being considered part of New England). It was really the ARW that created a separate identity for Nova Scotia, as a Nova Scotia (actually this was more true of New Brunwick, but New Brunswick was a part of Nova Scotia until 1784) became the place where many of the loyalist New Englanders settled....

 

[Socrates]

The Province of Quebec was only formed with the Midwest included in around 1774. To avoid the ARW, you'll need a POD before that, which will calm the trouble and likely mean a less generous Quebec Act. It will probably still include Ontario, however, as it's a natural geographic distinction. I imagine the British will keep them combined so as to make sure the French Catholics can be outvoted after heavy English settlement. They had to back down in our timeline because they couldn't risk a revolt in British North America with the Americans next door, but they'll feel safer to screw the Canadiens here.

We should also remember that, unlike the US experience with its states, the British would often move borders around, split & combine colonies etc. I think it's a mistake to think the same colonies would exist in perpetuity. I imagine New England would be merged once again, for instance. (Yes, I know they objected previously, but that was over other issues.) Virginia would likely get increased sway over North Carolina. Meanwhile new colonies West of Appalachia would probably get split off.

New identities would probably form around these superstates, and then possibly around larger regions too. Certainly I can't see that strong an "American" identity forming without a common enemy. The common enemy, if any, is likely to be the Canadiens, who will probably be the main source of strife long term, as I can imagine London wanting to side with the Anglo settlers more than the French long term. After that, there will be splits between the northern colonies and the southern colonies over slavery. I can also see the West developing a mentality of disliking the establishment types in both New York and London. Filibustering into Spanish land would also be more accepted by the British in this timeline, adding something else to the mix.

 

[Socrates]

On Africa, it's important to realise the British are going to be a LOT more dominant in this timeline if they hold and maintain North America. The strategic rivalry dynamic is likely to be different, and I can see the Scramble being avoided, with the British just demanding free trade throughout the place. Also, if the British get the West Coast of North America in this timeline, I can imagine them being more concentrated on Pacific markets, with deeper penetration into China.

 

[TMOT1955]

A British Empire continuing in America, especially one that totally avoids the American Revolution and ARW is going to butterfly a LOT of things. Especially if that British Empire in America continued very long term even perhaps to today.

To avoid the ARW you have to have a POD at least back to 1763. England cannot impose on her North American colonies (The 13 Colonies that became the fledgling USA) any of the taxes or restrictions imposed after the French and Indian War. In other words no Stamp Act, Sugar Tax, Tea Tax, etc. After 1763 the relationship status between England and her North American colonies has to remain at least what it was prior to the French and Indian War or be from the colonists' standpoint even better. My understanding is the roots of the American Revolution were the taxes and restrictions England imposed on the North American colonies after the French and Indian War.

Not sure if it would have worked or been feasible given communication and transportation at the time or if the colonists would have accepted it, but at some point perhaps have England offer the colonies representation in Parliment. That can bring up a whole new set of threads on this forum.

As to Quebec. Given how French Quebec is today still in OTL, almost a country within a country as I understand it, I don't think you will change those sentiments or relationships quickly or easily. In fact ITL the people of Quebec may be more likely to dig in their heels and say, "we're French!"

I think India will still be just as important to England ITL as in ours and as some I think have already said, perhaps even more so. If America remains British colonies very long term it would be interesting how American "Big Cotton" in the 1800's will effect this.

Also what about the effect of England abolishing slavery in I think the 1820's? That might have precipitated an American Revolution then. Though it might have been phased out in those areas. I understand that by the Civil War in OTL slavery was unprofitable and even something of a burden to the south. But if North America did remain part of the British Empire very long term this is a question I think would have to be addressed.

I also think Africa and the Middle East are going to be as or almost as important ITL as in ours. Question is how long will England hang on to those African colonies in this scenario? If the British Empire in America extends into the 1920's then both the Middle East and North America will become much more important due to oil.