What would history be like? I'm talking about the ban on slavery in 1834 (as opposed to 1861), the world wars, ect?

What would history be like? I'm talking about the ban on slavery in 1834 (as opposed to 1861), the world wars, ect?

Well for one, why assume the world wars will occur at all? Britain retaining North America (of which there has been a vast amount written on btw) will have such major effects on everything else, that questions using RL events are pretty much invalid.

See Butterfly Effect/Chaos theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect).

The butterfly effect on this would be so massive. The united states has had so much effect on everything it wouldn't be possible to predict wars or anything. I imagine revolutions would of been much less prevelent throughout history. But thats all I can accuratly imagine.

A civil war in 1834 considering that the pro-british southern aristocracy wouldn't be to happy about slavery being abolished.

The "US" would likely have remained confined to the East Coast (No Lousiana Purchase)

WWII likely won't have happened since WWI would have been much bloodier than it was if the US wasn't there to intervene when it did. By 1918 WWI had been fought to a bloody stalemate. It was the infusion of fresh US troops onto the allies side that allowed the war to finally end. WWI would likely have gone well into the 1920's ending only as the governments of the participents were overthrown by the war-weary public.

Um without the revolution we would be fighting for america from the beginning.

The "US" would likely have remained confined to the East Coast (No Lousiana Purchase)

WWII likely won't have happened since WWI would have been much bloodier than it was if the US wasn't there to intervene when it did. By 1918 WWI had been fought to a bloody stalemate. It was the infusion of fresh US troops onto the allies side that allowed the war to finally end. WWI would likely have gone well into the 1920's ending only as the governments of the participents were overthrown by the war-weary public.


You realize that America would be a British colony, thus ts production capabilities and man power would be under british control. For that matter, if Britain has retained America, it would have had a massive empire. Why the hell would Germany attempt to challenge it? The world might have been better off with America under British control.

The US would play some decent sports.

The "US" would likely have remained confined to the East Coast (No Lousiana Purchase)

WWII likely won't have happened since WWI would have been much bloodier than it was if the US wasn't there to intervene when it did. By 1918 WWI had been fought to a bloody stalemate. It was the infusion of fresh US troops onto the allies side that allowed the war to finally end. WWI would likely have gone well into the 1920's ending only as the governments of the participents were overthrown by the war-weary public.

Firstly British north america would include Canada, Rupertsland and the Oregan territories so the 'US' would have been crossing from coast to coast.

Secondly, it was more the morale boost from the US arriving than the actual numbers, considering it was less than an 8th of the Anglo-French forces (America only sent twice as many as Canada for christs sake) and they were outfitted with French equipment. The naval blockade of germany meant it was only a matter of time for the allies to win.

As part of BNA america would be in the fight from the begining ;).

@eazyhasaids: Which, if britain and canada help out in, the south gets crushed over?
@Damnyankee, never underestimate General Screwup - in WW1 the Germans did not think the UK would get involved when they started up...

Also there might not have been a prussian dominated germany, look at the chain of events:
American Revolution, supported by France
->ideas spread, and costs begger France
->French Revolution, Napoleon seizes power (and unlikly event in itself)
->Invades germany, reorganises and spreads the seeds of german nationalism
->Sets the stage for Prussia that helps beat the French to gain considerably in the aftermarth
->partly using anti-french feelings at home and abroad Prussia builds germany
->Balance of power, interlocking arrangements
->RANDOM assasination of Franz Ferdinand
->World War 1

If you cut the events tree at the base predicitng a WW1 similar to the real one is foolish.

True.

It would be fun to write an out and out althistory starting with the lack of an American revolution (A particularly farsighed PM pushes through the parliament and king the notion of american representatives on the parliament, probably)

True.

It would be fun to write an out and out althistory starting with the lack of an American revolution


Google it, there are dozens of published and hundreds of internet timelines and books of varying degrees of coherency and liklihood.

(A particularly farsighed PM pushes through the parliament and king the notion of american representatives on the parliament, probably)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_Plan?

The butterfly effect on this would be so massive. The united states has had so much effect on everything it wouldn't be possible to predict wars or anything. I imagine revolutions would of been much less prevelent throughout history. But thats all I can accuratly imagine.

Or maybe not. I think we'd see an Anglo-American Empire, however the centers of power (private and state alike) would still, evantually move westwards to Washington, Boston, New York etc, where they are currently.

By the second world war, United States was overwhelmingly the worlds leading economic power (something like 50% of the world's economy), and I think the same would be true even if American state institution would've been more British formally. US would still be the world's super power and UK would be it's ally, but perhaps you'd have the queen as the "head of state" in America.

Or maybe not. I think we'd see an Anglo-American Empire, however the centers of power (private and state alike) would still, evantually move westwards to Washington, Boston, New York etc, where they are currently.
Why? If America was a colony of the UK, then there would be no reason for it to assume anything except regional power. True, the economic potential of North America would result in it become important, but that doesn't not mean a shift towards American dominance.
Aside from anything else, if Britian had retained the 13 colonies, North America would still, in all likelihood, be divided between the UK, France and Spain (although France may well have lost it's colonies to Britian at some point), with the British-controlled sections ending up as a series of dominion states.

By the second world war, United States was overwhelmingly the worlds leading economic power (something like 50% of the world's economy), and I think the same would be true even if American state institution would've been more British formally.
Possibly correct, although I think you over-estimate pre-WW2 US economy. Remember, this was a nation in the middle of the Great Depression, not the post-war economic powerhouse of the 1950s. And this was back when Europe was still in a good state, rather than the bombed-out ruin that it was left after the war.

US would still be the world's super power and UK would be it's ally, but perhaps you'd have the queen as the "head of state" in America.
Firstly, there would be no USA- Canada and the USA were once part of a single "British North America", and, since it's unlikely that the UK would have created a dominion state that size, it would probably be several smaller nations. Probably something along the lines of Canada, Newfoundland (historically separate until 1949), New England, Something-in-the-North-East, Virginia (the South), Something-in-the-Midwest and Oregon.
Secondly, if the USA was controlled by Britain, why would it be a super-power?

Seriously, I thought you'd gotten over all this "Manifest Destiny" crap a century ago.

IF the REvolution had failed in the 1770s, i would expect another when britain outlawed slavery.

bear in mind that when britian outlaws slavery will also change as there are more factors infulencing them to keep it longer. And its likly that this factor of time will only serve to further weaken the pro-slavery lobby. (due to various demographic reasons).

I also expect it to be farely muted anyway, as the colonies will likly be caught in an economic trap with their products going either to Britian or further north to factories (it depends on the specifics of the timeline).

I suppose that the southern states might have broken off in 1834, but not the northern states.

However, i don't know whether the south would have been able to... how was england feeling at the time (and would those sentiments have been changed by a failed revolution in the 1770s?)

That depends on the point of departure from real history. Did the revolution never occur because the PM and Parliament were more even handed in the 1760's or 1770's, or did it fail because the French never showed up, or what? That would determine the attitude between the two for decades and centuries to come.

The french never showed up. or say George Washington had been captured on his escape from New York

Remember also that the Timurids would remain in power in India, since Britain wouldn't need to go looking for new cotton markets. Three hundred more years of Muslim rule could have dramatic effects on the Subcontinent.

I generally agree, though, that the world today would be completely unrecognizable had the Revolution failed.

The US wouldn't be anywhere near as great if that had happened; in fact, some of the things that would have needed to be done to keep crown control - things which would never have been successful anyways - would have done unthinkable damage to the development of the society. The crown would have to have kept the population and territory down to a manageable level in order to keep control. Thus the US certainly wouldn't have pursued the same immigration policies in the 19th century; English America was already too populous in the later 18th century to be controllable. Anyways, the hypothesis is out of the question; there would have been another revolt soon after.

No Louisiana purchase? Well, I don't think that was important honestly. English creoles would have steamrollered Louisiana irrespective of whether they had legal right; Louisiana had only a small population with perhaps one of the most hideous and unsustainable social systems in the history of western civilization; and it, like the Saint Lawrence River valley colonies, were too dependent on/vulnerable to Indians. You know, you hear a lot of crap about how English America wouldn't exist today if the British had lost the French and Indian war. Crap. English America had 10 times the population of French America. French America was demographically doomed already by the early 18th century; prolly already doomed before it even begun. Then you hear people say, "Well, if the English hadn't taken over Dutch America, Dutch would have been the language of America". Wrong again. Between a third and a half of the inhabitants of Dutch America were English, and English was becoming the main language of Dutch America before the English crown took control.

Keeping power in North America would have meant keeping the population disarmed and unmilitarised and perhaps illiterate, while retaining an expensive professional army for security. That was already unfeasible after the French and Indian War; it already cost something like 4 times as much to keep that army on the continent than the crown received in revenue. The crown's attempt to get back some of its money with a few light taxes was enough to drive the northern English creoles to revolt. If that was enough ... then, sorry, permanent crown control was an impossibility.

The lack of land available to ambitious white English Americans, either English creoles or first generation settlers from the motherland, was already creating too many social problems by the Wars of Independence for the crown realistically to have kept its colonials behind the Appalachians. I really could go on. It's not a very realistic what if.

If the American Revolution had failed, North America would probably have been "colonized" like Africa. Many small Colonies rather than a couple of huge countries, (Canada and the USA). And France would lose her colonies in the US in this timeline too. She would not be able to retain the "Lousiana territory", after all, the reason Napoleon sold it to Jefferson was to raise money to fight England and because he really could not defend it. And with England calling the shots, who can say how far "South" English rule would extend? Panama, Peru??? or Bolovia???

Remember also that the Timurids would remain in power in India, since Britain wouldn't need to go looking for new cotton markets. Three hundred more years of Muslim rule could have dramatic effects on the Subcontinent.
Technical point- at the time of the British conquest, India was ruled by the Mughals, not the Timurids, although the dynasty was founded by a faction of the former Timurid empire which controlled modern-day Pakistan.
Also, the British had already started to take control of India by the time of the Revolution, so it's unlikely that it would have remained under complete Mughal control. True, the British would not have pursued it's take-over as enthusiastically, but that just means that other empires may have managed to grab a chunk first.

If the American Revolution had failed, North America would probably have been "colonized" like Africa. Many small Colonies rather than a couple of huge countries, (Canada and the USA). And France would lose her colonies in the US in this timeline too. She would not be able to retain the "Lousiana territory", after all, the reason Napoleon sold it to Jefferson was to raise money to fight England and because he really could not defend it. And with England calling the shots, who can say how far "South" English rule would extend? Panama, Peru??? or Bolovia???

true, but who's to say that napoleon would be in power to sell the louisiana purchase. i'm not sure if i'm wrong here (using a high school level of american history), but i learned that the French revolution was inspired by the succesfull american revolution. Had the American revolution not happened, it is quite possilbe that the French revolution would not have happened. was the French Royalty strepped for money also?

I think you need to be careful about overstating the influence of the American Revolution on the French. The material conditions in France wouldn't be different, nor would the monarch's failings.

Also, Corsica was also an inspiration to liberals and revolutionaries everywhere and that revolution happened BEFORE the American, so it's not like people had no idea that liberal bourgeois revolutions could occur.

The US wouldn't be anywhere near as great if that had happened; in fact, some of the things that would have needed to be done to keep crown control - things which would never have been successful anyways - would have done unthinkable damage to the development of the society. The crown would have to have kept the population and territory down to a manageable level in order to keep control. Thus the US certainly wouldn't have pursued the same immigration policies in the 19th century; English America was already too populous in the later 18th century to be controllable. Anyways, the hypothesis is out of the question; there would have been another revolt soon after.


They would not have been able to get away with population control on a white, english speaking population as a) the people at home wouldn't allow it, and b) sorta defeats the whole 'loyalty' thing the brits were keen on. Also restricting population flow to the colonies? The British were hugely keen on emigration to remove surplus population, Canada and australia actually had freer immigration laws than the US (and government subsidised transport to there). Heck there was loads of irish and german immigration into Britain due to the freedom of movement allowed.

I don't see why the US would be much less 'great':
-immigration and investment would have remained high (considering how much of american infrastructure was financed with british money).
-Industrial development might have been later, but as soon as Britain got full up and investing in new plant is the way to go you would have loads of industrialists crossing the pond.
-Freedomz? Hardly, the british empire was a monsteriously cruel enterprise...as long as you weren't white
-Expansion? Well I can hardly see London being supportive of stealing territory from the french, Spainish and Russians...;).


No Louisiana purchase? Well, I don't think that was important honestly. English creoles would have steamrollered Louisiana irrespective of whether they had legal right; Louisiana had only a small population with perhaps one of the most hideous and unsustainable social systems in the history of western civilization; and it, like the Saint Lawrence River valley colonies, were too dependent on/vulnerable to Indians. You know, you hear a lot of crap about how English America wouldn't exist today if the British had lost the French and Indian war. Crap. English America had 10 times the population of French America. French America was demographically doomed already by the early 18th century; prolly already doomed before it even begun. Then you hear people say, "Well, if the English hadn't taken over Dutch America, Dutch would have been the language of America". Wrong again. Between a third and a half of the inhabitants of Dutch America were English, and English was becoming the main language of Dutch America before the English crown took control.



Keeping power in North America would have meant keeping the population disarmed and unmilitarised and perhaps illiterate, while retaining an expensive professional army for security. That was already unfeasible after the French and Indian War; it already cost something like 4 times as much to keep that army on the continent than the crown received in revenue. The crown's attempt to get back some of its money with a few light taxes was enough to drive the northern English creoles to revolt. If that was enough ... then, sorry, permanent crown control was an impossibility.


Except there are dozens of other ways to get back the money - if parliament had been more aware of the weakness of the indian tribes, they could have sold off the new land to recoup their expenses and relieved the pressure. And note it was only 1/3rd of the population who actively rebelled, a few better policies, a bit of divide and conquer with the demographics (allowing the diehards to migrate west) and you could easily shrink that down to managable levels, not to mention you have new people arriving from the metropole.


The lack of land available to ambitious white English Americans, either English creoles or first generation settlers from the motherland, was already creating too many social problems by the Wars of Independence for the crown realistically to have kept its colonials behind the Appalachians. I really could go on. It's not a very realistic what if.

I agree that long term control is unlikly, but postponing or altering the ARW is very easy indeed, and would have had huge ramifications down the line. An interesting take on it is Robert Sobel's 'For want of a Nail book' which has the British winning the ARW, but BNA thanks to population growth and political evolution becomes de facto independent by the mid-19th and de jure a little later (Politely telling Britain to piss off).

@Arwon: The social pressure of the Frecnh revolution is still there, but the establishment has more cash to throw around and the revolutionaries have one less clear model - its anyones guess what would happen (but something has to give eventually ;)).

-Freedomz? Hardly, the british empire was a monsteriously cruel enterprise...as long as you weren't white.
Or Catholic or Jewish or poor or a woman. :rolleyes:

Or Catholic or Jewish or poor or a woman. :rolleyes:

The jews had it okay after the 18th century ;).

The British Empire motto icrca 19th cenutry: "Heh, at least we're not Russia" ;)

My guesses are that:

Slavery would have been abolished, but gradually via reforms
in the 1850s towards indentured servants, rather than 1830s.

The French would likely have colonised Australia.

The Dutch would likely have colonised New Zealand.

Germans and Italians might have got more of Africa.

Although the 13 colonies would have developed faster
in the end of the 18th century without the disruptive war,
they would likely not have grown as fast or expanded west
so fast in the 19th century because of their involvement
in european wars and reluctance of Crown to admit foreigners.

There would not be the narrow Canadian population strip.

and reluctance of Crown to admit foreigners.


'The Crown' was perfectly happy to let germans and irish immigrate to Britain - what makes you think they'd oppose settlements in the colonies?

Lack of the historical Louisiana purchase is a moot point; inevitably all of North America (save the current shape of Mexico & Central America) was going to be gobbled up by the expanding 'Anglos'. Historically, it was the U.S. and Britain that got into eachother's face regularly when it came to establishing the historical border between the U.S. and Canada (from Maine, to the Pacific). But, the end result was inevitable... either under one flag, or two.

Anyway, it would be tricky to maintain control over such a Dominion (the correct term, not 'colony') as it grew in power & size exponentially. Even by the end of the 18th century, I don't think they would have been able to do it any longer. Which, of course was the historical outcome. The reasons for this are many, and I concur w/ calgacus on many of them. I would also add that the diverse population which actually included an increasing majority of Germans & other non-Brits, are inevitably going to form a society that is increasingly less loyal to the British crown. In the middle of that melting pot, a move towards a society with it's own identity & desire for independence was pretty much unstoppable.

So, I really don't see how the UK could have maintained control. It would have taken everything they had to suppress the revolts, for a lengthy sustained period of time. In the end, it would have all been counter-productive, for both them... as well as the new nation that was forming. Meanwhile France, Netherlands et. al. take the spoils elsewhere in the world.

Either that or the French would have taken control of India (as they almost did) since with no loss of America, Britain may not have been so keen to look east?

Who knows, a world where Britain dominated North America, France Asia, with a Spain that managed to keep control of South America due to lack of Revolutionary precedence and Monroe doctrine etc?

'The Crown' was perfectly happy to let germans and irish immigrate to Britain - what makes you think they'd oppose settlements in the colonies?


The USA wished to boost immigration for a number of reasons.

(a) new immigrants could do the hard labour
while the previous generation exploited them.

(b) the USA wanted to expand in its own right, while as
Calgulas points out the *Crown wanted consistency

Other factors are:

(c) the Crown recognised the rights of native peoples while
the US colonials did not and was more predisposed to work with
their diminished numbers rather than expel or kill them

(d) the USA claim it grew on refugees and this is true, but
many of its immigrants were fleeing criminals and debtors
attracted to the USA because there was no extradiction,
a crown ruled USA would have been a less desirable refuge

(e) the decision that slavery was illegal in the UK would have
made it much harder for slave estates to expand and reduced the
attractiveness of the USA to those who wished to be slave owners

(f) UK owned business would have repatriated more profit home,
slowing the capital for investment in US heavy industry.

* Crown here is not King, but the UK state including King and Parliament.

If we lost the Revolution, we'd still probably be 13 colonies.

If we lost the Revolution, we'd still probably be 13 colonies.

If so, it would have been bordered by a native Indian civilization, who by now (if no longer exploited), may have "caught up" technologically with the colonies. I doubt the Brits would have allowed the French to settle anywhere near the colonies.

If anything, i probably envisage a U.S more like Canada, but with universal healthcare. ;)

if britain still controlled USA would modern day UK still b like 99% power to democracy 1% power to Queen/King or would the Monarch retain power or, after the failure of democracy in America, gain complete control.
also, can any1 recommend me some books on alt histories of the British retaining america? i saw it mention earlier

if britain still controlled USA would modern day UK still b like 99% power to democracy 1% power to Queen/King or would the Monarch retain power or, after the failure of democracy in America, gain complete control.

Britain was about 95% democracy and 5% Monarchy in 1776.

The support for the monarchy in the UK was very nominal,
remember they were Germans; and would no doubt have declined
if not bolstered by the American and the French revolutions.

And Britain did not really control the 13 colonies anyway.

If the 13 states had not broken away by violent revolution, then it is likely
that as their population grew, power would have inevitably transferred West
across the Atlantic. This might have resulted in parallel allied governments
with the Monarch as symbolic head OR the thirteen colonies appointing
representatives to the Westminster Parliament OR a peaceful separation.

It is even possible that american power would have increased to the
point that Britain would have declared independence of America.

also, can any1 recommend me some books on alt histories of the British retaining america? i saw it mention earlier

"The Two Georges"
"A Transatlantic Tunnel, Hurrah" by Harry Harrison

It is even possible that american power would have increased to the point that Britain would have declared independence of America.
Forgetting that, even in our timeline, Britain ended up owning 1/4 of the planet and was far more powerful than the US until the 20th century, of course.

It is even possible that american power would have increased to the
point that Britain would have declared independence of America.
are u saying that GB would be declaring independence from US? there is no chance that would ever happen. like 90% of The US resources would b shipped to GB and/or used to Enhance GB, not building a massive Colonial army

Or Catholic or Jewish or poor or a woman. :rolleyes:

Catholic Emancipation took place in the late 18th century

My guesses are that:

Slavery would have been abolished, but gradually via reforms
in the 1850s towards indentured servants, rather than 1830s.

The French would likely have colonised Australia.

Why? The French never thought anything of the desert in the sea. Even the Dutch thought it was a wasteland and they discovered it. The British would still use Australia as a dumping ground for their convicts

The Dutch would likely have colonised New Zealand.

Why? After the Dutch discovery no European came back till Cook

Germans and Italians might have got more of Africa.

Not really, they would have united to late to get anything else. England would still occupy Egypt through the Napoleanic Wars and settled in South Africa and make their way to meet each other in Uganda. France would still settle in Algeria and push through the desert.

Although the 13 colonies would have developed faster
in the end of the 18th century without the disruptive war,
they would likely not have grown as fast or expanded west
so fast in the 19th century because of their involvement
in european wars and reluctance of Crown to admit foreigners.

There would not be the narrow Canadian population strip.

Either that or the French would have taken control of India (as they almost did) since with no loss of America, Britain may not have been so keen to look east?

The French lost most, if not all of its Indian Colonies to the British before American Independence in the 7 Years War along with French Canada. Britian would still rule India

Who knows, a world where Britain dominated North America, France Asia, with a Spain that managed to keep control of South America due to lack of Revolutionary precedence and Monroe doctrine etc?

France gets squat as usual and Britian would dominate the Atlantic and the Indian Oceans

A world in which Ben Franklin gets executed is not one worth living in. Dude was like a billion times cooler than Jesus.

Catholic Emancipation took place in the late 18th century

You're thinking of the Catholic Relief Act of 1778, which allowed Catholics to own property and join the army. The Catholic Emancipation Act, which allowed them to vote, was passed in 1829. Of course, hardly anyone in Britain could vote at that time anyway (this was before the Great Reform Act of 1832); you had to own considerable property to do so, and since Catholics had only been allowed to own property at all for fifty years, I doubt many were eligible to vote.

Of course it is still illegal for a Catholic to become monarch or even to marry the monarch. Hardly surprising, since the monarch is also head of the Church of England, and you can't exactly have a member of one demonination actually in charge of another; but still ludicrous.

A world in which Ben Franklin gets executed is not one worth living in. Dude was like a billion times cooler than Jesus.

Can't disagree with that one. (http://drmcninja.com/page.php?pageNum=29&issue=4)