Two British North American alternate history questions

[WolfBear]

1. What if the Jamestown Colony would have failed in the early 17th century? AFAIK, the Jamestown settlers wanted to return back home but a ship from England bringing both supplies and new settlers in 1610 convinced them to stay put. What effects would this have on the subsequent English colonization of North America and beyond?

2. What if Britain would have won the American Revolutionary War? Would territories such as Florida, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, and California have still eventually become part of the US in this scenario? Would the US and Canada be a single country right now, with a British monarch as its head of state and with a prime minister as its head of government? Would OTL present-day US's territory have anywhere near as many people as it has in real life right now? Would foreign-born people be eligible to become the US Prime Minister, similar to Canada in real life? (No natural-born citizen requirement.) Would a lot of blacks from the Southern US have eventually moved to Canadian cities as a part of the Great Migration? Would the US Constitution be significantly easier to amend in this TL? Et cetera.

Any thoughts on all of this, @stevep @Circle of Willis @Zyobot @History Learner @Skallagrim?

 

[ATP]

1. What if the Jamestown Colony would have failed in the early 17th century? AFAIK, the Jamestown settlers wanted to return back home but a ship from England bringing both supplies and new settlers in 1610 convinced them to stay put. What effects would this have on the subsequent English colonization of North America and beyond?

2. What if Britain would have won the American Revolutionary War? Would territories such as Florida, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, and California have still eventually become part of the US in this scenario? Would the US and Canada be a single country right now, with a British monarch as its head of state and with a prime minister as its head of government? Would OTL present-day US's territory have anywhere near as many people as it has in real life right now? Would foreign-born people be eligible to become the US Prime Minister, similar to Canada in real life? (No natural-born citizen requirement.) Would a lot of blacks from the Southern US have eventually moved to Canadian cities as a part of the Great Migration? Would the US Constitution be significantly easier to amend in this TL? Et cetera.

Any thoughts on all of this, @stevep @Circle of Willis @Zyobot @History Learner @Skallagrim?

1.They would try later,but,as a result,less people would go there.Maybe France would keep their colonies there in 7th year war as a result?
2.No,England do not wanted more territories there,so they would take only part of OTL USA territory.
@B - yes,one country with Canada.
2C less people
2D all Crown subjects could be PM there.
2E blacks would be free,and as such free to live when they want.
2F what constitution?

 

[S'task]

1. What if the Jamestown Colony would have failed in the early 17th century? AFAIK, the Jamestown settlers wanted to return back home but a ship from England bringing both supplies and new settlers in 1610 convinced them to stay put. What effects would this have on the subsequent English colonization of North America and beyond?

This would have put a major crimp on things, with perhaps the first successful English colony instead being Plymouth. This has major repercussions as this means the entire American south as we know it likely never comes to pass, with New England being the purely dominate area.

2. What if Britain would have won the American Revolutionary War? Would territories such as Florida, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, and California have still eventually become part of the US in this scenario?

Florida was already British at the time of the Revolutionary War, it was taken from the Spanish at the end of the French and Indian War, the Spanish only got it back as a result of the Treaty of Paris and the end of the American Revolution. As such, if the Revolutionary War is lost by the American Colonies, Britain would have continued to hold Florida.

And even if they did not, they likely would have wanted Florida in order to connect their Caribbean holdings to the N. American holdings and prevent a major staging area for Spanish power in the region that could cut the trade routes between the Caribbean and N. American colonies.

Louisiana - Maybe. It will depend on if the French Revolution occurs or not. The French Revolution occurring GREATLY depends on the WHEN of the failure of the American Revolution. The earlier the failure, the less likely the French Revolution becomes. Regardless, with the failure of the American Revolution the next time the French and Britain go at it and the British kick the French's asses yet again, there's a good chance the British will grab up the French territory in N. America and the Caribbean if only to get the French out of that section of the world. Plus control of the Mississippi if a major thing.

Texas/New Mexico/California - All unlikely to be taken from the Spanish or later Mexico by the British.

 

[WolfBear]

This would have put a major crimp on things, with perhaps the first successful English colony instead being Plymouth. This has major repercussions as this means the entire American south as we know it likely never comes to pass, with New England being the purely dominate area.


Florida was already British at the time of the Revolutionary War, it was taken from the Spanish at the end of the French and Indian War, the Spanish only got it back as a result of the Treaty of Paris and the end of the American Revolution. As such, if the Revolutionary War is lost by the American Colonies, Britain would have continued to hold Florida.

And even if they did not, they likely would have wanted Florida in order to connect their Caribbean holdings to the N. American holdings and prevent a major staging area for Spanish power in the region that could cut the trade routes between the Caribbean and N. American colonies.

Louisiana - Maybe. It will depend on if the French Revolution occurs or not. The French Revolution occurring GREATLY depends on the WHEN of the failure of the American Revolution. The earlier the failure, the less likely the French Revolution becomes. Regardless, with the failure of the American Revolution the next time the French and Britain go at it and the British kick the French's asses yet again, there's a good chance the British will grab up the French territory in N. America and the Caribbean if only to get the French out of that section of the world. Plus control of the Mississippi if a major thing.

Texas/New Mexico/California - All unlikely to be taken from the Spanish or later Mexico by the British.

Who takes over the present-day Southern US instead? Spain? Or someone else? Spain already had St. Augustine back then, FWIW.

So Texas/New Mexico/California all remain Mexican even right now, eh? Interesting.

 

[stevep]

A lot would depend on the details but as S'tark says if the rebels are defeated timing would have a big impact on events in Europe. Without major French involvement and losses any French revolution is probably delayed. Not sure it would be avoided altogether as French finances were in a mess before 1776 and with widespread corruption and the 1st two estates - clergy and nobles - refusing reforms that shifted any burden of increased taxation onto them something is likely to happen sooner or later. Especially since an early British victory against the rebels probably means there is another war in Europe and across much of the world and unless this exposes serious problems for Britain - such as a new revolt in the colonies or its own 2nd revolution possibly - its likely to win and France will be even deeper in debt.

The other issue is not only how and when Britain wins but what happens afterwards? Do they seek to buy off the richer rebels by direct or indirect involvement in London. [Direct voting representation is not practical both because of the time delay and also that it would be unacceptable in the colonies as it would mean paying taxes at the same level as someone in the UK which would cause deep opposition.] Or do they seek some form of repression. Historically, Ireland aside where the ruling Protestant minority tended to be idiots, after defeating a rebellion Britain tended to make concessions but this could have been in part due to the experience of the American revolution.

Assuming some later rebellion doesn't occur then sooner or latter the colonies will want more and more independence and you could see something like dominion status - or if circumstances are right kingdoms established under junior members of the royal family possibly. Unlikely to be a single massive state as this is likely to at least start before modern railways make such large states possible plus there are going to be strong regional differences. Plus with Britain as a protector and unless there is a powerful large state nearby there's no great need for them to give up regional loyalties and identities.

In terms of future borders I can't see western Louisiana staying outside of British/colonial control. Its too thinly settled given the huge population edge the British colonies have which TTL will be backed in periods of warfare with France by the RN and regular British army, as well as its industry and fiscal power.

In terms of the SW and Pacific coast I would expect Britain to occupy the latter at some point as there would be increased demand for a west coast port. The issue further south is how long the Spanish empire survives and how does it die? If it avoids a disaster like the Napoleonic occupation then it could last another generation or two possibly but unless its willing to drastically relax centralised control the empire will break away sooner or later. Spain, governing via a small number of peninsula's from Iberia can't keep a lid on things forever.

The best bet for the colonies, and hence possibly the worst for the British colonies, might be that in some war with Spain Britain encourages revolution in their colonies and seeks the quick collapse of Spanish power. This could mean that states, most noticeably New Spain [aka Mexico] gains independence without a bloody and destructive decade long conflict and hence retains much of its mineral wealth instead of many mines being abandon and left to flood and decay. Plus it would mean a close friendship, at least initially, between London and the new Mexican government. Then if you get stability and continued growth in Mexico it could well attract a lot of investment from Britain and also migrants from Europe, which might mean it stays strong and stable enough to keep its northern territories.

However if anything like OTL occurs with weak Mexican governments and internal division then its likely that the British North American colossus will steadily absorb most if not all of OTL annexations and possibly even more. Gold in California would be the death keel for Mexican control there unless its a long stronger and more stable as prospectors would flood in and most of them would be from Britain or look probably to Britain for protection if Mexico sought to abuse or expel them.

 

[WolfBear]

A lot would depend on the details but as S'tark says if the rebels are defeated timing would have a big impact on events in Europe. Without major French involvement and losses any French revolution is probably delayed. Not sure it would be avoided altogether as French finances were in a mess before 1776 and with widespread corruption and the 1st two estates - clergy and nobles - refusing reforms that shifted any burden of increased taxation onto them something is likely to happen sooner or later. Especially since an early British victory against the rebels probably means there is another war in Europe and across much of the world and unless this exposes serious problems for Britain - such as a new revolt in the colonies or its own 2nd revolution possibly - its likely to win and France will be even deeper in debt.

The other issue is not only how and when Britain wins but what happens afterwards? Do they seek to buy off the richer rebels by direct or indirect involvement in London. [Direct voting representation is not practical both because of the time delay and also that it would be unacceptable in the colonies as it would mean paying taxes at the same level as someone in the UK which would cause deep opposition.] Or do they seek some form of repression. Historically, Ireland aside where the ruling Protestant minority tended to be idiots, after defeating a rebellion Britain tended to make concessions but this could have been in part due to the experience of the American revolution.

Assuming some later rebellion doesn't occur then sooner or latter the colonies will want more and more independence and you could see something like dominion status - or if circumstances are right kingdoms established under junior members of the royal family possibly. Unlikely to be a single massive state as this is likely to at least start before modern railways make such large states possible plus there are going to be strong regional differences. Plus with Britain as a protector and unless there is a powerful large state nearby there's no great need for them to give up regional loyalties and identities.

In terms of future borders I can't see western Louisiana staying outside of British/colonial control. Its too thinly settled given the huge population edge the British colonies have which TTL will be backed in periods of warfare with France by the RN and regular British army, as well as its industry and fiscal power.

In terms of the SW and Pacific coast I would expect Britain to occupy the latter at some point as there would be increased demand for a west coast port. The issue further south is how long the Spanish empire survives and how does it die? If it avoids a disaster like the Napoleonic occupation then it could last another generation or two possibly but unless its willing to drastically relax centralised control the empire will break away sooner or later. Spain, governing via a small number of peninsula's from Iberia can't keep a lid on things forever.

The best bet for the colonies, and hence possibly the worst for the British colonies, might be that in some war with Spain Britain encourages revolution in their colonies and seeks the quick collapse of Spanish power. This could mean that states, most noticeably New Spain [aka Mexico] gains independence without a bloody and destructive decade long conflict and hence retains much of its mineral wealth instead of many mines being abandon and left to flood and decay. Plus it would mean a close friendship, at least initially, between London and the new Mexican government. Then if you get stability and continued growth in Mexico it could well attract a lot of investment from Britain and also migrants from Europe, which might mean it stays strong and stable enough to keep its northern territories.

However if anything like OTL occurs with weak Mexican governments and internal division then its likely that the British North American colossus will steadily absorb most if not all of OTL annexations and possibly even more. Gold in California would be the death keel for Mexican control there unless its a long stronger and more stable as prospectors would flood in and most of them would be from Britain or look probably to Britain for protection if Mexico sought to abuse or expel them.

Excellent analysis, Steve! And FWIW, I was thinking of a US-Canada union in the mid- or late 19th century here, once railroads would have actually made this idea viable.

 

[stevep]

Excellent analysis, Steve! And FWIW, I was thinking of a US-Canada union in the mid- or late 19th century here, once railroads would have actually made this idea viable.

It would all depend on how the internal politics in BNA [British North America] went here. If there's not a clear external threat would the assorted colonies with their different cultures and economic interests feel that strongly about giving up their self-government to join a larger organisation? There would be some need for agreement on some aspects, like unimpeded travel along the Mississippi and the Great Lakes/St Lawrence for colonies depending on those routes. However there could probably be a fair number of areas of competition and differences and where smaller areas especially might not want to allow other ones to overrule them.

Not saying that a massive union won't happen. However its not necessarily certain.

One other issue is how slavery and its aftermath is resolved in TTL? Still having the mainland colonies, even without direct voting connections in London, slavery will have more impact and also the OTL resolution by paying slave-owners an amount for freeing their slaves would be a lot more expensive, especially if slavery on the mainland has taken off as much as OTL? Does it still end bloodily as OTL in the US - although very likely a lot quicker as the UK can commit regular forces and a massive navy to crush any rebellion. On the other hand with a decentralized assembly of colonies in BNA what would be the response of other colonies which have little or no slavery - the latter quite possibly willing to accept London's terms for ending slavery? You won't have a central government in BNA that could call for volunteers to help suppress the rebellion, as Lincoln was able to do OTL but probably give a lot of volunteers who object on moral grounds. - Mind you another point is that if the British empire ends the slaver trade as OTL in ~1807 does the BNS 'south' build up as many slaves as OTL as they won't have the ability to continue the slave trade under the protection of the US flag as they did OTL. Plus despite the greater prominence of slave holders in the empire its still likely this clash would occur at least a decade or more before 1860 so again slave numbers are likely to be lower than OTL US south.

Similarly in a decentralized BNA after such a war what happens with the freed blacks, which include those from other British possessions such as the Caribbean Islands? Will they have free movement across BNA or might individual colonies or provinces as they might be by then be, seek to restrict such movements? Which might be easier in a decentralized BNA. In which case with less outlets to other parts of the continent you might see greater racial tension in the southern provinces.