Successful Chartists: What Happens to the Empire?

[Gosing]

Okay, for the purposes of discussion, let's say that this scenario takes place within the context of a world where (due to the death of William IV in the Napoleonic Wars and some jiggling of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to get Ernest of Hanover on the throne), in the late 1830s Great Britain undergoes a successful republican revolution spawned from frustration over the monarchy's increasingly auhoritarian nature and stubborness on reform. By 1840, Britain has settled downas a radical (yet constitutional) republic.

What happens to the Empire?

India by this time is fully under Company control; I personally have doubts as to the Company's ability to hold on to the subcontinent, but OTOH most of the native aristocracy was ruling princely states by the '30s, so they won't have much legitimacy. Could the Russians possibly step in to the vaccum?

And what of His Majesty's north American possessions? I'd imagine that the United States (under Van Buren at the time) would have happily taken control of them, but would they be able to?

All answers are appreciated.

 

[Shawn Endresen]

I don't think Ernest is your man, really; he was in favor of extending the franchise, if for the most cynical and vicious of reasons. Consider Frederick, Duke of York, presumably by having George IV eat and drink himself to death early so that Fred is the Prince Regent etc.

That said, depends on what happens to King [Fred/Ernest]. Execution has eventually made trouble for the regimes that tried it, so I would expect exile. Probably to Hanover, where he is still King/Elector (since the British probably have no desire to hold on to it).

The HEIC continues merrily on. It survived the Cromwellian Interlude without missing a beat, it'll survive this.

Do the revolutionaries grant nonconformist, Catholic and Jewish emancipations? If not, Ireland is set to go pear-shaped, since the Irish may see advantage in acknowledging and supporting their "King" simply to be seperate from the "Second Commonwealth". Actually, timing here is everything - the outlawing of slavery/Great Trek is 1833, the Fenian Revolts in 1837; so if the flashpoint is before or after either of those can make a big difference.

Best vague generalization: USA grabs for English-speaking Canada and supports Quebec independence, South Africa remains slavery-based and Boer-dominated, India and Australia stay with London. The USA may or may not regret it later.

 

[archaeogeek]

The HEIC continues merrily on. It survived the Cromwellian Interlude without missing a beat, it'll survive this.

The HEIC was an embryo in the 1640s and the loss of metropolitan support will only speed up their fall, this time without the empire to have their back

Do the revolutionaries grant nonconformist, Catholic and Jewish emancipations? If not, Ireland is set to go pear-shaped, since the Irish may see advantage in acknowledging and supporting their "King" simply to be seperate from the "Second Commonwealth". Actually, timing here is everything - the outlawing of slavery/Great Trek is 1833, the Fenian Revolts in 1837; so if the flashpoint is before or after either of those can make a big difference.

Good point, if the revolution draws on too much, it may well lead to the early independence of a Boer dominated South Africa.

Best vague generalization: USA grabs for English-speaking Canada and supports Quebec independence, South Africa remains slavery-based and Boer-dominated, India and Australia stay with London. The USA may or may not regret it later.

In 1833, there is no such thing as English Canada and Quebec; the two provinces (which were called Upper and Lower Canada, the notion of Quebecois nationalism separate from Canadian nationalism before the 1960s is a huge anachronism) had large minorities from the other side, and the french population of the two combined still amounted to about 55-60% of the overall population (and that includes something like 25-30% english settlers in Lower Canada). Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and the islands are another matter, obviously.

Also, when the 1837-1838 revolution happened, both Lower and Upper Canadian patriots fought for the establishment of a republic of Canada on the basis of a declaration that was very close in spirit to the US DOI. They of course underestimated tories on both sides, and the willingness of the metropolis to send a overwhelming force rapidly to deal with it.

Newfoundland I'm not sure, but Nova Scotia was always pretty solidly tory during the period and would probably not follow. I'm not terribly sure the US would invade it either, although they would probably make a move for the territory they considered part of Maine after all.

 

[Thande]

Very good question and I don't know. As archaeogeek says, this was around the time Canada had its own revolution, so probably something along those lines. Elsewhere, I think the EIC might basically turn into its own self-contained corporate state, initially boycotting the revolutionary Britain and trading with other countries instead. By the 1830s there wasn't really anyone who could pose a threat to Company rule, even something on the scale of the OTL Mutiny could be survived (albeit severely weakening the EIC in the process) in my opinion.

An interesting issue is what happens to the Australian colonies. Or South Africa (is it too late for the Dutch to try and reclaim it, one wonders?)

 

[Shawn Endresen]

The HEIC was an embryo in the 1640s and the loss of metropolitan support will only speed up their fall, this time without the empire to have their back

The days when the Company needed the Government's backing to hold on to India are long gone in the 1830s. I've often wanted to see a timeline where when Parliament revokes the Company charter and makes India a Viceroyalty, he Company says "yeah, right." Of course, the directors and officers think of themselves as Britons, and likely conservative Britons at that; how they react will depend on the specific demands and actions of the revolutionaries.

In 1833, there is no such thing as English Canada and Quebec; the two provinces (which were called Upper and Lower Canada, the notion of Quebecois nationalism separate from Canadian nationalism before the 1960s is a huge anachronism) had large minorities from the other side, and the french population of the two combined still amounted to about 55-60% of the overall population (and that includes something like 25-30% english settlers in Lower Canada). Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and the islands are another matter, obviously.

quite; I was speaking anachronistically.

Newfoundland I'm not sure, but Nova Scotia was always pretty solidly tory during the period and would probably not follow. I'm not terribly sure the US would invade it either, although they would probably make a move for the territory they considered part of Maine after all.

Van Buren considered sending the army to help the Fenians in OTL and rejected it after a fair bit of Cabinet debate on the grounds of -well, common sense, really. But if London appears preoccupied with affairs closer to home, America will make certain of Fenian independence. What exactly "success" will look like could be a number of things, of course - I don't think proto-Canadians were any more interested in becoming Americans than modern Canadians are, really.

 

[archaeogeek]

Van Buren considered sending the army to help the Fenians in OTL and rejected it after a fair bit of Cabinet debate on the grounds of -well, common sense, really. But if London appears preoccupied with affairs closer to home, America will make certain of Fenian independence. What exactly "success" will look like could be a number of things, of course - I don't think proto-Canadians were any more interested in becoming Americans than modern Canadians are, really.

Considering the americans were on good terms with the Canadian rebels and the large non-loyalist american numbers in the english population, chances are they'd end up supporting the rebellion but otherwise letting the republic of Canada largely alone, probably as a puppet, although they might consider advancing statehood for the two provinces.

 

[Gosing]

Thanks for all of the feedback. I might possibly do a TL on this someday, if I get a chance to read up on mid-19th century British politics.

Ernest's name always pops up in discussions of successful Chartism, but I suppose Fred is a better candidate. I doubt that he would be executed-even if he's dumb enough to be captured, he'll probably just be given a showy trial and consgned to exile or possibly imprisonment.

India sounds interesting-I was sure that British rule couldn't survive, but consensus seems that it could. It would certainly be fascinating to see how such a state would evolve-I would say that it would either slowly reform back into a more native-dominated state or be given a sharp shock like the Mutiny that throws it into disarray. Of course, there won't eb any new officials coming from Britain (though there may be some royalist immigration, but Australia would probably be a bigger destination).

I hadn't really considered Australia and New Zealand, but I don't see much of a chance for revolution there. Maybe it would receive a lot of royalist immigration and become a monarchy with no-one on the throne (though of course, the King is still around; Hanoverian Australia?)?

Ireland will be...interesting. I don't know what the OTL Chartists thought of Catholic Emancipation, but it was a cause celebre (sp?) of liberals of the day. Its possible the Irish, when they realize the end is near for the monarchy, could launch another rebellion on the hope that Republican Britain will just let them go.

Canada is destined for the American sphere, probably. The revolution occurs in 1839, so the Fenian Revolt will have been put down, but I imagine that the Americans could march in to Lower and Upper Canada on the "Liberation" pretext. The Maritimes are still populated by the UEL's children, so there won't be much American sympathy there. Maybe a "Canadian Republic" (Quebec and Ontario) under American dominance?

South Africa will be in a precarious position. The Boer states will probably take the chance to invade, and we may very well see a Boer South Africa.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Ernest was an Orange Lodge Protestant, and was widely despised in Britain, frequently at war with the press over the murder of his valet, and his getting into power would have seriously destabilised the existing political system. Its difficult to say what WOULD have happened, as opposed to what might have, but his being king would have sowed a lot of seeds of dischord

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Thande]

It would certainly be fascinating to see how such a state would evolve-I would say that it would either slowly reform back into a more native-dominated state or be given a sharp shock like the Mutiny that throws it into disarray.

Probably the former. The Company leadership might also start recruiting people from European trading companies into their structure, sort of like the French Foreign Legion.

They might perhaps build the Mughal Emperor back up into more of a credible figure to give them more legitimacy--still no real political power, but an important symbol.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Probably the former. The Company leadership might also start recruiting people from European trading companies into their structure, sort of like the French Foreign Legion.

They might perhaps build the Mughal Emperor back up into more of a credible figure to give them more legitimacy--still no real political power, but an important symbol.

I was wondering whether the Company would revert to its previous policies of recruiting from among the native population and favouring mixed marriages - it was a backlash from Britain that stopped this, and freed from that influence it would certainly make sense long term

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Thande]

I was wondering whether the Company would revert to its previous policies of recruiting from among the native population and favouring mixed marriages - it was a backlash from Britain that stopped this, and freed from that influence it would certainly make sense long term

I was thinking that as well, actually, but by this point it might be culturally too late--hence my suggestion they would recruit from other European trading companies to keep the number of whites up.

Funny thought: Lord Liverpool was only 58 when he died...if he had remained PM longer and provoked the public with his authoritarianism, this might be the POD required for a Chartist revolution...and then being Anglo-Indian himself he might flee to India after being overthrown and set an example for more mixed marriages?

 

[Faeelin]

Very good question and I don't know. As archaeogeek says, this was around the time Canada had its own revolution, so probably something along those lines. Elsewhere, I think the EIC might basically turn into its own self-contained corporate state, initially boycotting the revolutionary Britain and trading with other countries instead. By the 1830s there wasn't really anyone who could pose a threat to Company rule, even something on the scale of the OTL Mutiny could be survived (albeit severely weakening the EIC in the process) in my opinion.

Britain still has a navy, no? And the stockholders in the EIC are still in Britain?

 

[Thande]

Britain still has a navy, no? And the stockholders in the EIC are still in Britain?

An important point. Will the Royal Navy cleave to the new regime or what? And will it remain under the control of its captains or will there be another revolutionary mutiny?

 

[Faeelin]

An important point. Will the Royal Navy cleave to the new regime or what? And will it remain under the control of its captains or will there be another revolutionary mutiny?

Something to keep in mind: The Chartists were not radical socialists. In fact, a look at their demands suggests they were successful. There was significant middle class support for their ideas, after all.

Further, to get a Revolution to have any chance, you will need the English middle classes on board. I think this is viable, but it suggests the English state will make it through intact, with the navy not defecting under the threat of radical mutinies.

(For some reason I imagine the British Revolution being remarkably civilized, with a bunch of parliamentarians showing up at Buckingham and telling Ernst to get out before they throw him out).

 

[Gosing]

Many more good points.

My rough idea of how the Revoltion ended was that Ernest (and a couple of the more reactionary MPs) flee Britain shortly ahead of an angry mob of Chartists and defected soldiers. The RN will probably be taken intact by the republicans (the revoltion will probably be quick enough that by the time the RN has a chance to react, Ernest will be in Hanover).

Might the continental powers invade on Ernest's behalf? It would certainly be a good chance to take Britain down a notch, and to keep radicals at home from getting any funny ideas. Of course, such an invasion would just unify people behind the Chartists and would probably be a spectacular failure anyway.

India, as I said, would be fascinating. An HEIC state that plays its cards right could become a powerhouse (they already had a substantial technological lead on the rest of Asia), but would need to become more open to natives. The positions available to natives could go higher and higher as time progresses, and I can't see white rule lasting until the new millenium.

Another point: the Opium War. It will be slightly delayed, but China will be opened sooner or later; and when it is, might India set up a sphere of influence in that nation?

 

[Thande]

Something to keep in mind: The Chartists were not radical socialists. In fact, a look at their demands suggests they were successful. There was significant middle class support for their ideas, after all.

It was more a case of appeasement. Earl Grey satisfied some of their moderate demands and enfranchised the middle classes, stripping away the middle class support they needed. While you're correct that there weren't many radical republicans in the Chartist movement, I thought the idea here was that a more reactionary response from the establishment brings those radicals to the forefront and triggers a revolution. Otherwise there isn't really anything to discuss.

 

[archaeogeek]

Something to keep in mind: The Chartists were not radical socialists. In fact, a look at their demands suggests they were successful. There was significant middle class support for their ideas, after all.

Further, to get a Revolution to have any chance, you will need the English middle classes on board. I think this is viable, but it suggests the English state will make it through intact, with the navy not defecting under the threat of radical mutinies.

(For some reason I imagine the British Revolution being remarkably civilized, with a bunch of parliamentarians showing up at Buckingham and telling Ernst to get out before they throw him out).

And the french had the Feuillants and large royalist minorities well into the 1870s. They're still a republic today. Pick the right king and the British will, too, froth at the mouth and want a repeat of Cromwell-at-Naseby

 

[Faeelin]

It was more a case of appeasement. Earl Grey satisfied some of their moderate demands and enfranchised the middle classes, stripping away the middle class support they needed. While you're correct that there weren't many radical republicans in the Chartist movement, I thought the idea here was that a more reactionary response from the establishment brings those radicals to the forefront and triggers a revolution. Otherwise there isn't really anything to discuss.

My point is that even the Radical Republicans weren't advocating seizing the commanding heights and nationalizing the economy.

 

[Shawn Endresen]

If 1839 is our definite date, HEIC India still was relatively open to natives and to mixed marriages. The policies of evangelism, religious antagonism and racialism didn't really start until the 1840s. If the relationship with London becomes - strained - then it's very possible it stays that way.

Not sure about Canada under those circumstances. The rebellion has been definitively put down by that point; even the USA probably sees that the opportunity has been missed.

The ownership of the Oregon Teritory has not been settled yet. I wonder if the USA demands the whole thing from the new British Government?

If the RN chooses Country over King, any invasion is - unlikely. Louis-Philippe isn't going to go for it. Off the top of my head, I suspect Prussia, Russia and Austria lack the naval capacity to do so anyway.

 

[Falecius]

Something to keep in mind: The Chartists were not radical socialists. In fact, a look at their demands suggests they were successful. There was significant middle class support for their ideas, after all.

Further, to get a Revolution to have any chance, you will need the English middle classes on board. I think this is viable, but it suggests the English state will make it through intact, with the navy not defecting under the threat of radical mutinies.

(For some reason I imagine the British Revolution being remarkably civilized, with a bunch of parliamentarians showing up at Buckingham and telling Ernst to get out before they throw him out).

The real British revolution was a little bit less kind. But yeah, a completely different time.