If the American colonies had stayed loyal ?

[otago]

OK, it is 1780 and American colonies and Britain have come to an agreement that the colonies would get representation in the UK in exchange for taxation.
Britain decides to reward HM's loyal American subjects by deciding they will become a fully self governing Dominion in 1830 with of course a Westminster type government and HM as head of state.
So people, what happens next ?

My own gut feeling is that the slave states would would have broken away taking those people who had no wish to be subjects of HM as well, with the slave states staying with slavery as a separate republic.

A United States of Canada with the non slave states and Canada ?

 

[Dachs]

Dominions in the 1830s? Really?

1780 is a rather unusual date for some kind of reconciliation. By then, I doubt that anybody would have seriously attempted any compromise or considered one. But I don't know as much about the Anglo-American negotiations as I probably should! At any rate, very little short of what would substantively end up being called responsible government would probably have been enough carrot for the British stick to work in 1775 or so. And the British weren't even considering it, not even Pitt.

To discuss the question on its own merits and hand-wave the difficulties of implementation, I think that the lack of an American Revolution and the presumed crash of Vergennes' foreign policy much, much earlier than OTL has profound implications for European diplomatic history in the short run. For one thing, I can't imagine that the American revolutionaries are going to completely go away, and there will be ample opportunities for friction between Britain and other powers. If the Family Compact actually becomes a legit organization due to the threat of British hegemony, we could see a war over Pacific issues (like Nootka Sound, for instance) or a general Ottoman crisis assuming Yekaterina Velikaya still decides to have fun in Ochakov. And in such a situation, France/Spain would be overjoyed to have the opportunity to undermine the British in any way possible. I am assuming balance-of-power politics because this is pre-1814.

It'd be also interesting for imperial historians to speculate on what this might have meant for the nascent British empire in India.

My own gut feeling is that the slave states would would have broken away taking those people who had no wish to be subjects of HM as well, with the slave states staying with slavery as a separate republic.

Some of the strongest support the Brits had was in the slave states.

I think it's hilarious that you're discussing this at the same time there's a general to-do about the concept of a counterfactual in the history forum. Which, by the way, is where this poorly thought out thread should belong. Should I assume that, because you posted it in the wrong place, you're making one of your usual, ah, threads, and inadvertently stumbled onto a semi-interesting topic instead of an irrelevant three-year-old news article?

 

[Fetus4188]

Weren't the local governments in the northern colonies and Canada fairly different? Why would they be a part of the same dominion in this alternate scenario? Also, United States of America would still be a more fitting name than United State of Canada.

Beyond that I can't even begin to speculate what this would mean. I know that the American Revolution is downplayed as far less significant than we Americans like to believe, but it still a very important event in western history. What does the loss of a democratic rebellion and a stronger Great Britain mean, say, for the French Revolution? Does it still happen? Does it happen differently? Any change there would obviously mean radically different history in mainland Europe.

 

[Kozmos]

We can't trust the darkies to govern themselves....wait...wrong thread. *flees*

 

[Dachs]

Beyond that I can't even begin to speculate what this would mean. I know that the American Revolution is downplayed as far less significant than we Americans like to believe, but it still a very important event in western history. What does the loss of a democratic rebellion and a stronger Great Britain mean, say, for the French Revolution? Does it still happen? Does it happen differently? Any change there would obviously mean radically different history in mainland Europe.

Oh, the American Revolution was definitely a major part of a seminal series of events in European diplomatic and geopolitical history, and anybody who says otherwise is deluding herself. One might not go so far as some authors in claiming that the rebellion caused the French Revolution - that's awfully reductionist. But a key role was played, especially with regards to French foreign policy, from the geopolitical alignments of the actual war itself to the peace where France essentially got nothing for itself, seriously discrediting Vergennes and all associated with him. This had knock-on consequences for the Patriotten of the Netherlands in the short run, and for the various crises that reached a crescendo in about 1790 in Central and Eastern Europe and in the Pacific. Systemically, the American Revolution was part of a series of events that effectively caused France to stop acting as though it were a Great Power for over a decade, totally destroying any semblance of 'balance' in Western Europe and almost preconditioning the astonishing military events of 1792-4.

 

[Luckymoose]

USA #1 would never allow this to happen.

 

[Tani Coyote]

If we became a Dominion, it'd probably end up just like normal history - we'd end up breaking free like the rest after two World Wars. We'd still fight on Britain's side like before.

Sounds like not much difference except we too would have that nifty Governor General and PM thing...

---

Now, I'd be more concerned about the impact elsewhere. Would the Spanish Empire, too, have been forced to concede more and more sovereignty to its colonies(as didn't the American Revolution help inspire those rebels?) What would the Constitutions of the world be like, since many were based on the American?

 

[illram]

Then we would only have four TV channels. FOUR. :suicide:

 

[GhostWriter16]

USA #1 would never allow this to happen.

USA #1 didn't exist

 

[BuckyRea]

Some of the strongest support the Brits had was in the slave states.

The southern US states ended up have a pretty psychotic relationship with Britain throughout the early 19th century. The closer their their economies grew with the cotton-and-textile trade, the more strained their relationships became. When the former colonies got divided by the Napoleonic wars, the south was the center of Francophilia and Anglophobia. When British political cartoonists invented a "John Bull" counterpart, they came up with "Brother Jonathan," a slack-jawed slavedriver with a bullwhip in his back pocket.

My point is that in a counterfactual, you can't really count on the continuation of events to proceed in a direct linear progression shooting off from the point of deviation from actual history. Historical trends swing around a lot. Growing Parliamentary opposition to the slave trade would have been certain to generate a lot of pretty adamant sectional conflict between the southern colonies and the motherland.

Of course the conceit of the OP's what-if is flawed. The 13 colonies would never have settled for simple inclusion into Parliament. They wanted "home rule" (although they didn't call it that). The position of virtually every whig in the colonies was that the American states were separate countries requiring separate mini-parliaments. They didn't want foreigners, even British foreigners, giving them laws.

 

[Fairline]

You'd all be a lot thinner, have worse teeth and be less likely to shoot each other. You'd also know its football not soccer and wouldn't be calling squirrel p1ss beer.

 

[sophie]

USA #1 didn't exist

USA #1 forever. It is the first law of the universe, dawg.

 

[timtofly]

There would be more French speaking area than just Quebec. California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas would still be Spanish. The American Indians would be the first 19th century Civilization, and Canada would be a lot smaller. The slave trade would have ended sooner, and Muslims would have claimed all of Africa. Germany would be part of Russia, and part of China would be Japaneese. We would still have steam power, hydro plants, and no nukes. Airplanes and Airships would all be powered by Hydrogen, and India would have a colony on the moon.

 

[Bugfatty300]

When the former colonies got divided by the Napoleonic wars, the south was the center of Francophilia and Anglophobia.

I was under the impression that the Southern states were unanimously opposed to the War of 1812?

 

[Traitorfish]

If we became a Dominion, it'd probably end up just like normal history - we'd end up breaking free like the rest after two World Wars. We'd still fight on Britain's side like before.

I think that's a bit simplistic. There's nothing about the colony > dominion > independence progression that was inevitable, especially not if a more powerful, more organised home rule movement existed within the colonies. A less centralised, confederate model could well have developed- something like a more tightly-knit Commonwealth with a central government.

 

[JohnRM]

To address the actual question.

In that (unlikely) scenario, I think that you are reasonably correct. Another conflict of some kind would likely have taken place at some point over the issue of slavery. After 1825-ish, I don't think it was any longer possible to resolve the issue without one.

Hmm...past two lines deleted. I took the Louisiana Purchase for granted for some reason. Obviously that wouldn't happen in this TL. This would be very interesting to think about more. I will do that.

 

[Virote_Considon]

I think the American conservatives and everyone else would have genocided each other.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think the American conservatives and everyone else would have genocided each other.

Why? They managed to conduct the War of Independence without doing so.

 

[Dachs]

My point is that in a counterfactual, you can't really count on the continuation of events to proceed in a direct linear progression shooting off from the point of deviation from actual history. Historical trends swing around a lot. Growing Parliamentary opposition to the slave trade would have been certain to generate a lot of pretty adamant sectional conflict between the southern colonies and the motherland.

Absolutely true. Since I generally rejected the idea that any post-1776 PoD would have the colonies still in the British system by 1830 or so you're not really doing much but preaching to the choir.

What I was infinitely more interested in were the systemic consequences for European diplomacy and geopolitics, since that's kind of my main focus in this period. And in that context, speculation about that sort of thing does become relevant, because we're not talking about the specific political history of a country anymore, we're talking about international equilibria, and those aren't nearly so mutable.

Of course the conceit of the OP's what-if is flawed. The 13 colonies would never have settled for simple inclusion into Parliament. They wanted "home rule" (although they didn't call it that). The position of virtually every whig in the colonies was that the American states were separate countries requiring separate mini-parliaments. They didn't want foreigners, even British foreigners, giving them laws.

Totally agreed, as I mentioned in my first post.

 

[BuckyRea]

I was under the impression that the Southern states were unanimously opposed to the War of 1812?

Flip your equation 180 degrees. The eastern states opposed the war. The West, which was at the time an extension of the South, was hog wild for the War of 1812. It was the New Englanders who called it Mr. Madison's War.