England or other European nation as US State
Travis Corcoran
I've had the following idea tumbling around in my head for a while,
and figured I'd throw it out for consideration:
Is there any realistic alternate history which could result in the
United States having a European nation as one of its states?
I personally can't see a US anything like the one we've known choosing
to have a state or states of foreign speakers, but I can, remotely,
see an English speaking European nation becoming part of the US.
There are a few general approaches I see:
(1) After WW II the US does not leave England for whatever reason:
perhaps the Nazi's won and all of the continent is under German
control. The US maintains a strong presence in the UK, and after 20
or 25 years the English are tired of being second class citizens in
their own home, and apply for statehood.
IMHO: Unlikely with out lots of other influences
(2) After WW II a US more bent on colonialism than in our own time
chooses to stay in the UK with or with out the approval of the
natives.
(3) In order to prevent the Revolutionary War, English progressives
give Americans representatives in partliament, based on the population
of the territories. A few generations go by, and suddenly England is
run from the Western Hemisphere. The end result is not the USA
controlling England, but still an American nation controlling England.
Heck, with another English civil war sometime between 1775 and the
current day, it *COULD* be the USA...
Any other paths to getting to this endpoint?
Any thoughts on the paths I laid out?
--
TJIC (Travis J.I. Corcoran) TJ...@icd.teradyne.com
opinions(TJIC) != opinions(employer(TJIC))
"Buy a rifle, encrypt your data, and wait for the Revolution!"
Erwin Wodarczak
: (3) In order to prevent the Revolutionary War, English progressives
: give Americans representatives in partliament, based on the population
: of the territories. A few generations go by, and suddenly England is
: run from the Western Hemisphere. The end result is not the USA
: controlling England, but still an American nation controlling England.
: Heck, with another English civil war sometime between 1775 and the
: current day, it *COULD* be the USA...
: Any other paths to getting to this endpoint?
Look for Avram Davidson's short story "O Brave Old World!", in the
collection _Beyond Time_. The son of George II, Frederick (George III's
father), goes into exile in the colonies (instead of dying from a bad
case of the quacks), establishes a court there, and... well, find the
story yourself and check it out. A fine, whimsical little yarn.
--
Erwin Wodarczak (ewo...@unixg.ubc.ca)
UBC Library - Special Collections and University Archives
"Round up the usual disclaimers"
Jeanne Cruden
j.
Andrew (Drew) H. Clark
|> In article <TJIC.94N...@niven.icd.teradyne.com>,
|> Travis Corcoran <tj...@niven.icd.teradyne.com> wrote:
|> |(3) In order to prevent the Revolutionary War, English progressives
|> |give Americans representatives in partliament, based on the population
|> |of the territories.
|>
|> revolutionaries of representation in the House of Commons and 10 American
|> peers in the House of Lords.
|>
...and history would be different.
In particular, there would never have been 'The Constitution'.
The parliament must be reorganised along different lines.
The reorganisation that occurred due to Industrial Revolution urbanisation
hadn't taken place and the means to incorporating new terrain (Louisiana
Purchase) would have to be fiddled.
The 'American Identity' (Toqueville's view and the American Dream) would
not have been stillborn. Would most Americans consider themselves 'Englishmen'?
How these tangles would have been resolved would answer whether the new
British Empire would have gotten off the ground.
Would Canada have remained outside? Not likely, pull them into this new country.
How would the new Country have felt about slavery and imperialism?
Britain outlawed this around 1815, right? I'm guessing the new country
postpones this during the Napoleanic Wars to pacify the southern lords, but
eventually abolishes slavery by 1840s without causing a civil war.
Would they have allowed the incorporation of India and Africa into
the new country instead of as Colonies? (Once the precendant was made with
Americans, This question also applies to Ireland and the 'Home Rule' question.)
My guess is that history would record this alternate with Americans
reestablishing indepenence before the Union lived long. This scenario is
interesting, but it is also possible to imagine the British Empire
with North America, half Africa, India and Australia running through
the 19th Century. Meanwhile, how do others deal with a stronger Britain?
Wouldn't the Germans and French find this a significant threat?
Without the 'Monroe Doctrine' wouldn't a European power have
tried grabbing the former Spanish Colonies?
With the NA east coast looking to London more, would there still have been
such strong interest in westward expansion? Would there have been the
same acceptance of immigration?
Unfortunately I find myself raising more questions than answering so
I'll stop here while I have a chance to do more thinking.
Soon I'll take another crack at this.
Although the USA wasn't a global player until WWI, this what-if brings
them into history sooner and I would expect big deviations before WWI.
---
Drew Clark CAPE Team, AI/OR, Ford Motor Co.
"They do not preach that their God will rouse them a little before the nuts
work loose." -R. Kipling
Tony Buckland
>I've had the following idea tumbling around in my head for a while,
>and figured I'd throw it out for consideration:
>Is there any realistic alternate history which could result in the
>United States having a European nation as one of its states?
I imagine plenty of traffic on the theme of the UK remaining free
while the rest of Europe goes under to Naziism (WWII) or
Communism (post-WWII). Since I am British-born, I have considerable
sentimental attachment to this idea, although I think realistically
Britain couldn't have held out forever, in an air age, as it did
so valiantly during the Battle of Britain.
But I can well imagine the US hanging on to Iceland, in which it
made a considerable military investment during WWII. Iceland
exerts considerable strategic influence over North Atlantic
shipping and in particular traffic around Scandinavia from the
USSR of the time, and makes a dandy airbase for defense or offense.
US history being what it is, territory or commonwealth and
eventually state status could well be in the cards.
Scott Penton
>Subject: England or other European nation as US State
>Date: 06 Nov 1994 20:15:22 GMT
>I've had the following idea tumbling around in my head for a while,
>and figured I'd throw it out for consideration:
>Is there any realistic alternate history which could result in the
>United States having a European nation as one of its states?
>I personally can't see a US anything like the one we've known choosing
>to have a state or states of foreign speakers, but I can, remotely,
>see an English speaking European nation becoming part of the US.
>There are a few general approaches I see:
>(1) After WW II the US does not leave England for whatever reason:
>perhaps the Nazi's won and all of the continent is under German
>control. The US maintains a strong presence in the UK, and after 20
>or 25 years the English are tired of being second class citizens in
>their own home, and apply for statehood.
> IMHO: Unlikely with out lots of other influences
How is the US maintaining a strong presence in the UK after WWII going to
make the British feel like second class citizens? Assuming that Nazi
Germany wins the war conqueors the continent, and then abandons its goal of
conquest of England, England herself will maintain a strong military to
gaurd against any further German aggression. The US presence would
certainly be welcome, but British nationalism in the face of constant
danger of invasion would be stronger than ever.
>(2) After WW II a US more bent on colonialism than in our own time
>chooses to stay in the UK with or with out the approval of the
>natives.
So in other words the US chooses to invade a soveriegn nation and impose
their own control. Not too much better than the Nazis in this senario, are
they? British resistance to this kind of American imperialism would be
extremely high. IMHO, if this senario were enacted, Britain would at best
only remain a territory of America held under martial law, with plenty of
violence and terrorism by the natives.
>(3) In order to prevent the Revolutionary War, English progressives
>give Americans representatives in partliament, based on the population
>of the territories. A few generations go by, and suddenly England is
>run from the Western Hemisphere. The end result is not the USA
>controlling England, but still an American nation controlling England.
>Heck, with another English civil war sometime between 1775 and the
>current day, it *COULD* be the USA...
I wouldn't call the result of this senario an "American" nation. The seat
of government would still be in England, and would have the traditional
constititional monarchy form. As well, I'm pretty sure that the population
of Britian and the US stayed pretty much the same until the start of this
century. I believe that currently the UK has 100 million people and the US
260 million.
By this time, the most likely outcome would be that America would be split
of into at least one or two seperate Dominions, nominally under the British
Crown, with local autonomy. Foriegn policy of the Commonwealth would be to
a large extent run by Britain.
The new revolution concept does present an interesting what-if. America
looses the Revolutionary War and remains a British possession. In 1830 or
so, Britain declares slavery to be illegal throughout her dominions. How do
the Southern colonies in the Americas react? Rebellion against the English
Crown?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott "Newf" Penton The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own,
since childish people have access to my password.
"Baldric, you wouldn't recognize a subtle plan if it painted itself purple
and danced naked on a harpsicord singing 'subtle plans are here again'."
-- Edmund Blackkadder
Yeechang Lee
Travis Corcoran <tj...@niven.icd.teradyne.com> wrote:
|give Americans representatives in partliament, based on the population
|of the territories.
Very possible; the British did make a last-ditch offer to the American
revolutionaries of representation in the House of Commons and 10 American
peers in the House of Lords.
|A few generations go by, and suddenly England is
|run from the Western Hemisphere. The end result is not the USA
|controlling England, but still an American nation controlling England.
|Heck, with another English civil war sometime between 1775 and the
|current day, it *COULD* be the USA...
A fascinating idea. A close example would be Brazil and Portugal. After
Napoleon rolled into the Iberian peninsula, the Portuguese royal family
fled to colonial Brazil and functioned as a monarchy there. After
Napoleon's defeat Prince Dom Pedro decided to stay around in Brazil and
later led it as Emperor after independence.
Hmm . . . How 'bout the American Revolution (or the rebellion of the
American colonies for the Brits) is prevented by granting Americans equal
representation in Parliament, then Napoleon conquers all of Europe
including the British isles. George III and crew move to Philadelphia
and set up shop there. Napoleon is somehow defeated (by a Royal American
Expeditionary Force that lands on France June 6, 1815) but the monarchy
decides to stay in fast-growing America rather than return to devastated
England?
-- _____________________________________________________________________
Yeechang Lee (yc...@columbia.edu)|Nevada Las Vegas Mission 7/92-7/94
Columbia University/New York City|The Celestial Kingdom has Taco Bell
David Empey
In <39lang$c...@eccdb1.pms.ford.com> cl...@cpd125.cpd.ford.com (Andrew (Drew) H. Clark) writes:
[Referring to an AH where America stays part of the British Empire]
>Without the 'Monroe Doctrine' wouldn't a European power have
>tried grabbing the former Spanish Colonies?
Probably not; the Monroe Doctrine was mostly enforced by the British
anyway, as I recall. Presumably they felt it was in their interest
to do so; and this would be even more true in this alternate.
--
-Dave Empey (speaking only for myself)
...all Angelenos *know* that those dastardly Canadians have specially
trained two mile thick glaciers massed at the border, poised to sweep
down on the US of A. -Anon
vickie cooper
>The thought of this sends shiveers of fear and disgust down my spine.
>j.
I don't often post messages, so this one probably won't work. Is it
the thought of England as a state? While I think this somewhat
inconceivable, I don't dislike Britons that much. Of course, I'd much
rather Ireland was a state. My guess is that both would feel a
similar state of fear and disgust as you describe if the U.S. put
forth such a proposal to them. Thanks for listening or ignoring as you
see fit.
Andrew (Drew) H. Clark
|>
|> cl...@cpd125.cpd.ford.com (Andrew (Drew) H. Clark) writes:
|>
|> [Referring to an AH where America stays part of the British Empire]
|>
|> >Without the 'Monroe Doctrine' wouldn't a European power have
|> >tried grabbing the former Spanish Colonies?
|>
|> Probably not; the Monroe Doctrine was mostly enforced by the British
|> anyway, as I recall. Presumably they felt it was in their interest
|> to do so; and this would be even more true in this alternate.
I will agree, probably not. I hadn't forgotten the US-British alliance on
this doctrine, but I was thinking this AltHistory could easily have
sufficient distractions to both that a European power would find it more
tempting, but even more, I can't see which would try it.
In general, here is a proposed AltHistory:
1774-1780: better diplomacy on the part of British Ministers (and a George III
that accepted their recommendations) leads to American representation in
parliament. A Boston centered revolt fails to gain acceptance outside of
New England.
1789-1794: British response to the French Revolution includes measures to reform
parliament (at least more so than in our timeline) that keeps American peers
happy. Paine and other English "Enlightened" supporters are spurned by
English (and American) liberals. The 'United Kingdom' now includes another
crown ("King of America") and an American Parliament, subordinate to the
'United Parliament'. Canada is added to the American Parliament,
centered in New York (OK, maybe Philadelphia, but not Boston nor Richmond).
1796-1815: Napoleanic Wars. The Americans take French possessions, including
'Louisiana' and New Orleans. American support provides greater British
Naval power in the Caribean, removing all French possessions there.
The Portugese Court moves to Brasil.
The Spanish colonies revolt and gain independence on schedule.
1825-1835: Industrial Revolution and Explosive Population growth in America
inspire another round of parlimentary reforms: removal of 'rotten boroughs'
greater representation by population, integration of Ireland into the 'United
Parliament' yet also an 'Irish Parliament'. (The mood between Conservatives
and Liberals (or Tory and Whig or Whatever) will swing more than once.)
(The experiments with Irish Parliaments from our timeline start earlier with
the American Parliament. 'Irish Home Rule' issues would be echoed and
paralleled with 'American Home Rule'. Another American Revolution could
easily occur here, but let's choose a path keeping them united longer)
Another attempt by Americans to separate themselves from English control
prompts the final resolution. The American block becomes a significant
factor in coalition building. American immigration policy allows entrance
but puts hurdles in place of citizenship. Earliest attempts at stopping
slavery: New importation of slaves is outlawed, but slavery is allowed
to continue in the south.
1840s: The combined North American block with British support prevents
the spread of slavery into western territories. Southern slaveholders
populating the Mexican territory of Texas, try to revolt.
At this point, I'm not certain what happens. The balance that allowed slavery
to spread west in the US is tipped by Britain which would actively discourage
it. Would British Americans be as interested in supporting the Texans?
I see an Independent Texas, but not the Mexican-US war.
Meanwhile, Europe has the troubles of the 1844 revolutions. England again
breezes through while the rest of Europe is preoccupied.
The potato famine would still occur causing some Irish immigration, however,
I think the constitutional crises would have started a decade earlier and
led to an Irish government that probably wouldn't have screwed up as badly
as in our timeline, yes?
1850s on: Slavery is undermined by an industrialised North that doesn't support
slaveholders asking for the return of runaway slaves. Greater pressures are
put on the institution through out the south.
The California goldrush populates another Mexican province with Americans.
The Texans and Californians cause another Mexican crisis. After sitting on
the side for awhile, the British can't stay out for long. The mechanisms
used to bring amercian territories into the American parliament (and
increased representation in the United Parliament) don't encourage aplications
for statehood as in our timeline. Finally, the British allow the establishment
of a new country with Ca & Tx as the bulk. (OK, a wild guess. I'm having fun)
The British have India, but won't follow the 'American Model' (yet). It
stays a hodge-podge of territories.
The Opium Wars follow the usual track.
The Australian Continent is populated without a difference.
I don't have my references here. What is the respective populations of the
British Isles and the Americans (including Canada)? At what point will the
Americans decide they don't want their ultimate government to be so remote?
Morse and Marconi will go a long way towards reconnecting, but will this
shrinkage of the distance arrive soon enough?
I'm trying to keep the Americans part of the British Empire as long as I can,
but I expect the inherent difficulties in keeping overseas colonies,
provinces or kingdoms (however the British attempted to keep the Americans
integrated) could not be resolved until radiotelegraph and faster steam travel
or other technologies remove the remoteness. To continue:
1860s: Slavery in the south is forced out. Although difficult, a civil war over
this issue is unlikely. A civil war of the duration of ours is even less
likely.
The Russians have no interest in selling Alaska to the British, but overtures
to the North Mexican Republic are prolonged and difficult.
I'll stop here, after 100 years of differences.
Without the American experiments and example in democracy, would any important
lessons be lost? maybe not
Will the British have learn enough to manage a global country? possibly.
Would the British still view Indians and Africas as unable to run themselves?
certainly. Only Whites would run things in British Africa and India,
but they might be represented in a United Parliament instead of a colonial
office.
The first difference I see for the rest of the world is a stronger England
in the Napoleanic War. Others I mentioned are the Irish Question and American
immigration policy and the US-Mexican war.
Something not apparent is that England and the Americans industry would be
combined and outstrip the Germans easily. I'm assuming the Americans would
still develop industrially the same. I suppose British policy might try to
discourage that, but they couldn't without losing America to the 'Empire'.
In future, with an integrated AngloAmerican industry, the British would be
stronger in future European issues. Wouldn't FrancoGerman interests be
stronger at cooperating to balance this?
Scott Michael Hollmeyer
Two things if the GBR became a state:
1. We have to call it "Airstrip One" (Orwell fans chuckle here)
2. We get those limeys to drive on the right side of the road.
richard mallender xd/hd 1703
> jcr...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Jeanne Cruden) writes:
>
> >The thought of this sends shiveers of fear and disgust down my spine.
>
> inconceivable, I don't dislike Britons that much. Of course, I'd much
> rather Ireland was a state.
With a name like Cooper ? ;-)
> My guess is that both would feel a
> similar state of fear and disgust as you describe if the U.S. put
> forth such a proposal to them.
A lot of Britons are not happy with the proposal that we become a
state within a federal European Union. I think given the choice
of joining a federal Europe or federal North America (ie: an evolved
NAFTA), a lot of people here in Britain would vote for the latter.
As a what-if, this could already have happened. In 1974 the UK
held a referendum on membership of the (then) EEC. If the vote
had been for leaving the EEC, & no further application for membership
had been made, then the UK might have made more of an effort to
promote EFTA (European Free Trade Association, founded when De Gaulle
vetoed the UK's original EEC membership application).
If by the early 90's EFTA and the EC were both viable entities,
then when NAFTA was finally created, it would have more in common
with EFTA (free trade inclined) than the EC (protectionist inclined).
Eventually NAFTA and EFTA might unite, & looking further ahead have
formed some federal or confederal union.
Richard.
.
___________________________________________________________________
Ericsson Telecommunications Ltd. My opinions, not the company's.
Burgess Hill, Sussex,
ENGLAND
David Empey
(Andrew (Drew) H. Clark) wrote:
> dge...@cats.ucsc.edu (David Empey) writes:
> |>
> |> cl...@cpd125.cpd.ford.com (Andrew (Drew) H. Clark) writes:
> |>
> |> [Referring to an AH where America stays part of the British Empire]
> |>
> |> >Without the 'Monroe Doctrine' wouldn't a European power have
> |> >tried grabbing the former Spanish Colonies?
> |>
> |> Probably not; the Monroe Doctrine was mostly enforced by the British
> |> anyway, as I recall. Presumably they felt it was in their interest
> |> to do so; and this would be even more true in this alternate.
>
> I will agree, probably not. I hadn't forgotten the US-British alliance on
> this doctrine, but I was thinking this AltHistory could easily have
> sufficient distractions to both that a European power would find it more
> tempting, but even more, I can't see which would try it.
>
> In general, here is a proposed AltHistory:
[Neat AH deleted to save bandwidth]
> The first difference I see for the rest of the world is a stronger England
> in the Napoleanic War.
Probably not too much stronger; if I remember Kennedy's _Rise and Fall of
the Great Powers_ correctly, British-American trade during the NW was quite
vigorous, until 1811-12 or thereabouts. And don't forget, no American
Revolution means the French don't spend a lot of money fighting the British
(they spent as much on the American Revolution as their three previous
wars combined, says Kennedy) so you'd see a stronger France for the NW
period too. In fact, without the drain of the AR on their exchequer,
the French Revolution might have been delayed by several years, or even
avoided entirely. Or perhaps we'd just see a less radical one, with
Louis XVI not executed. I'd vote for a FR delayed until, say, 1794.
> Others I mentioned are the Irish Question and American
> immigration policy and the US-Mexican war.
>
> Something not apparent is that England and the Americans industry would be
> combined and outstrip the Germans easily.
Damn straight. And _that_ could mean no WWI: no one would dare start a
fight with the British Empire in 1914 if it included a North America with
an economy anything like the actual US economy in 1914; Britain would still be
quite the most powerful country on Earth.
--
Dave Empey
Rub her feet.
David Mix Barrington
>In article <TJIC.94N...@niven.icd.teradyne.com> tj...@niven.icd.teradyne.com (Travis Corcoran) writes:
>>I've had the following idea tumbling around in my head for a while,
>>and figured I'd throw it out for consideration:
>>Is there any realistic alternate history which could result in the
>>United States having a European nation as one of its states?
>
>
> But I can well imagine the US hanging on to Iceland, in which it
> made a considerable military investment during WWII. Iceland
> exerts considerable strategic influence over North Atlantic
> shipping and in particular traffic around Scandinavia from the
> USSR of the time, and makes a dandy airbase for defense or offense.
> US history being what it is, territory or commonwealth and
> eventually state status could well be in the cards.
A tidbit I noticed in O'Brian's biography of Joseph Banks was that
Britain seriously considered annexing Iceland during the Napoleonic
Wars. I was going to pose this as a what-if, but I couldn't see it
making much of a difference. British (Scottish islander and Highlander)
migration to Iceland? Greater interest by Britain in Scandinavian affairs?
Can anyone come up with anything more exciting? This would be a good
excuse for a butterfly-effect scenario, where a very minor change somehow
totally changes the world by 1994...
Dave MB
reid....@pca.state.mn.us
England?
1) Ireland. If the potato blight hit Ireland earlier and there had been a
similar, but earlier, mass migration to the US, the US would have been
significantly more Irish than it is. (Could they have provided a substitute
labor force for black slaves, who got rather expensive after a while?) At
any rate, we get a strongly Irish US with a strong hatred of England, so
that the US never gets over its hostility to England from the American
Revolution and the War of 1812. The US provides a lot of support to Irish
rebels. At some point in some European war, to keep a hostile US neutral
and yet not have a rebellious Ireland at its back, England frees Ireland on
condition that it join the US. Ireland is happy to do so, given its long,
strong ties to the US. But when? The US was no threat at the time of the
Napoleonic Wars, and World War I seems a bit late. Any ideas?
2) Israel? They might want to join in order to get a better security
guarantee. When is rather iffy, and under what circumstances the US
would say 'yes' is iffier yet.
3) Malta or Gibraltar? We need a scenario where England loses a war in the
1800's and at the peace conference, the victors don't trust each other to hold
such key bases. Therefore they give them to a safely distant neutral power,
the US. But would they become states? Maybe not.
- Reid Gagle Minnesota, Land of 10,000 Flakes
"Sometimes you're the windshield. Sometimes you're the bug."
James Nicoll
Andrew (Drew) H. Clark <cl...@cpd125.cpd.ford.com> wrote:
>
>In general, here is a proposed AltHistory:
>
> reform parliament (at least more so than in our timeline) that keeps
> American peers happy. Paine and other English "Enlightened" supporters
> are spurned by English (and American) liberals. The 'United Kingdom' now
> includes another crown ("King of America") and an American Parliament,
> subordinate to the 'United Parliament'. Canada is added to the American
> Parliament, centered in New York (OK, maybe Philadelphia, but not Boston
> nor Richmond).
A stupid question: at what point does New York beocme the major city
it is now? IMS, it was transportation developments further west that
funneled trade through that city: do they still happen?
BNA could end up with a capitol city which is also the economic hub:
IMO a bad thing, as the hinterlands might get ignored or mishandled.
Could Montreal be a candidate for the capitol?
snip
>The potato famine would still occur causing some Irish immigration, however,
>I think the constitutional crises would have started a decade earlier and
>led to an Irish government that probably wouldn't have screwed up as badly
>as in our timeline, yes?
It would hard to: Ireland grew enough food during the Famine to
feed itself, but most of it grew on land owned by foreign landowners who
did not allow the Irish to eat it--they wanted the money from exporting
the food. Food relief was seen as something that would damage the moral
fibre of the Irish.
James Nicoll
--
Travis Corcoran
In article <39lang$c...@eccdb1.pms.ford.com> cl...@cpd125.cpd.ford.com (Andrew (Drew) H. Clark) writes:
> From: cl...@cpd125.cpd.ford.com (Andrew (Drew) H. Clark)
> Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if
> Date: 7 Nov 1994 13:40:00 GMT
>
> In article <39jtvp$m...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>, yc...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu (Yeechang Lee) writes:
> |> In article <TJIC.94N...@niven.icd.teradyne.com>,
> |> Travis Corcoran <tj...@niven.icd.teradyne.com> wrote:
> |> |(3) In order to prevent the Revolutionary War, English progressives
> |> |give Americans representatives in partliament, based on the population
> |> |of the territories.
> |>
> |> Very possible; the British did make a last-ditch offer to the American
> |> revolutionaries of representation in the House of Commons and 10 American
> |> peers in the House of Lords.
> |>
>
> ...and history would be different.
>
> In particular, there would never have been 'The Constitution'.
True. :(
> The 'American Identity' (Toqueville's view and the American Dream) would
> not have been stillborn. Would most Americans consider themselves 'Englishmen'?
Probably. They certainly did at the begining of the Revolutionary War.
> Would Canada have remained outside? Not likely, pull them into this new country.
Agreed.
> How would the new Country have felt about slavery and imperialism?
> Britain outlawed this around 1815, right? I'm guessing the new country
> postpones this during the Napoleanic Wars to pacify the southern lords, but
> eventually abolishes slavery by 1840s without causing a civil war.
Perhaps gradual emancipation? If the posit the free states include
not only the North, but Canada, England, Scotland, etc. the free
states would definately have the votes to outlaw slavery any time they
wanted ( as opposed to the actual development where the South and
North jockeyed to maintain the same number of senate seats from).
With this muscle opposing them the South might have conceded to
gradual emancipation, seeing it as the better of two alternatives.
> Would they have allowed the incorporation of India and Africa into
> the new country instead of as Colonies? (Once the precendant was
> made with Americans, This question also applies to Ireland and the
> 'Home Rule' question.)
Hmmm...not sure. If so, would the natives have been allowed to have
citizenship?
Another point: with the route to India "just" a hop across the Pacific
from the ports of LA, the Empire probably wouldn't have abandoned it
in/after WW II (asuming it lasted that long).
> My guess is that history would record this alternate with Americans
> reestablishing indepenence before the Union lived long. This
Once again, I agree. Something like this could work now, with
instantaneous mass communications, but I'm not sure if it could have
worked when transport and communication were so slow. I think the
time of breakdown would have been during the Western Expansion, when
(a) the culture in the US became re-oriented towards the frontier
(after being bottled up E of the Appalachians for so many decades) (b)
the voting power of the Western Hemisphere portion of the Empire began
to catch up to and exceed the voting power of the English portion of
it. Interesting...on this last note, the power structure in England
might have encouraged us to leave, so that they could retain the
majority...
> Wouldn't the Germans and French find this a significant threat?
Hmmm..yes. But if they made the mistake of attacking the shipping of
the NE ports (as they would have to in any general war with
England...), they would probably find that they had strengthened the
ties that bound the Eastern half of the Empire to the Western half.
> Without the 'Monroe Doctrine' wouldn't a European power have tried
> grabbing the former Spanish Colonies?
There could have been a similar doctrine (even if it would be hypocritical).
> With the NA east coast looking to London more, would there still
> have been such strong interest in westward expansion? Would there
> have been the same acceptance of immigration?
I think a lot of the immigration was driven by the open land.
A interesting idea: would the classism and royalty structure of
England have led to multiple levels of citizenship? This would solve
the problem of immigration (immigrants are allowed, but they get a
lower class of citizenship), as well as the Indian question (same
deal).
Thanks for the ideas!
Rick Kitchen
In a previous article, cl...@cpd125.cpd.ford.com (Andrew Drew) H. Clark) says:
>In general, here is a proposed AltHistory:
>1774-1780: better diplomacy on the part of British Ministers (and a George III
> that accepted their recommendations) leads to American representation in
> parliament. A Boston centered revolt fails to gain acceptance outside of
> New England.
Don't forget that it ws British policy not to allow white expansion past
the Appalachians. Does Parliament change this policy, or would there
not have been some sort of American resistance to this policy? What would have resulted?
>1789-1794: British response to the French Revolution includes measures to reform
> parliament (at least more so than in our timeline) that keeps American peers
> happy. Paine and other English "Enlightened" supporters are spurned by
> English (and American) liberals. The 'United Kingdom' now includes another
> crown ("King of America") and an American Parliament, subordinate to the
> 'United Parliament'. Canada is added to the American Parliament,
> centered in New York (OK, maybe Philadelphia, but not Boston nor Richmond).
Philadelphia was *the* cosmopolis of North America. New York was a bit
of a backwater until the Erie Canal was built.
--
Rick Kitchen ap...@yfn.ysu.edu
"Gods don't like people not doing much work. People who aren't busy all
the time might start to *think*.
--Terry Pratchett, "Small Gods"
Guest
>
[snip]
>(3) In order to prevent the Revolutionary War, English progressives
>give Americans representatives in partliament, based on the population
>of the territories. A few generations go by, and suddenly England is
>run from the Western Hemisphere. The end result is not the USA
>controlling England, but still an American nation controlling England.
>Heck, with another English civil war sometime between 1775 and the
>current day, it *COULD* be the USA...
>
I find it interesting that there is not more speculation about the American
Revolutionary War. While the US Civil War generates a lot of theorizing,
largely, I think, because of wishful thinking by some elements in society
and the more uncertain nature of the conflict, not too much has been
writen about alternate Revolutionary War timelines. It is because it was
miliarily impossible for GB to subdue the entire continent when every man,
bullet, and biscuit had to be shipped 3500 miles over sea from a country
that was divided about the propriety of the conflict in the first place? To
be sure, there is a sense in which extremely poor generalship lost the war
for the British, but was it ever winnable by the British? I suspect that the
only way to defeat the Americans would have been to destroy the economy
by wrecking all crops and capital, something which would have made the
colonies useless as colonies. I can imagine timelines in which revolution is
made much less likely, but it is hard to imagine British victory, re-imposing
imerial will over miliarily defeated colonies. Thoughts, anyone?
Andrew (Drew) H. Clark
|>
|> >In general, here is a proposed AltHistory:
|> >1774-1780: better diplomacy on the part of British Ministers (and a George III
|> > that accepted their recommendations) leads to American representation in
|> > parliament. A Boston centered revolt fails to gain acceptance outside of
|> > New England.
|>
|> Don't forget that it ws British policy not to allow white expansion past
|> the Appalachians. Does Parliament change this policy, or would there
|> not have been some sort of American resistance to this policy? What would have resulted?
The Proclamation of (Oh what was the year? 1756?) did make the Appalachians
a western border. In fact, Kentucky was being colonised in spite of this.
Few paid any attention to policy and there was no real enforcement mechanism.
(What should they do? Try to barricade it? Make periodic sweeps to collect
those found in the wrong spot?)
The best that could be done was slow the inevitable. However, this
could domino in some strange way.
For example, stiffer enforcement means there isn't American interest in New
Orleans when Napolean was willing to sell the Louisiana Purchase. Would this
area then become another Independant country during the independance of former
spanish colonies?
Then the Americans grab this in a war instead of purchase. Perhaps then the
Americans haven't spread far enough west that the California Gold Rush means
California stays Mexican (with more Spanish/Mexican prospectors than
English speakers?)
Finally, perhaps the delay is long chain that means other things happen with
Alaska, Hawaii, Phillipines, ...
Just a thought.
reid....@pca.state.mn.us
> No WWI: no one would dare start a fight with the British Empire in
> the actual US economy in 1914; Britain would still be quite the most
> powerful country on Earth.
The first principle of European diplomacy is the balance of power. Had
Britain been this strong, the other European powers would, if possible,
tend to combine against it. This would be difficult for France and Germany
in the wake of 1870 and the French loss of Alsace-Lorraine. But perhaps UK
would already be so powerful that Napoleon III and the Kaiser would have
made a effort to get along and no war in 1870 would have happened. And a
transatlantic UK in 1914 would not be more powerful than the Alliance of
Emperors dominating all of mainland Europe: an Austro-Russo-Franco-German
alliance. UK would dominate the seas while the Emperors would be
unassailable on land, with fighting occuring on the colonial periphery, esp
the Middle East. UK could try to push the democracy card, while the
Emperors might try an anti-imperialist argument....
Eric Gross
>I find it interesting that there is not more speculation about the American
>Revolutionary War. It is because it was
>miliarily impossible for GB to subdue the entire continent when every man,
>bullet, and biscuit had to be shipped 3500 miles over sea from a country
>that was divided about the propriety of the conflict in the first place?
This is certainly a large part of the problem -- poor British decisions
coupled with the logistics nightmare, vexed by the French intervention,
hobbled by internal politics and an English public that was in no way united
as to what English policy should be, all the while trying to balance off the
colonial war against other Imperial concerns and European matters . . . .
> I can imagine timelines in which revolution is
>made much less likely, but it is hard to imagine British victory,
>re-imposing imerial will over miliarily defeated colonies. Thoughts, anyone?
Well, let's see. Washington's army gets trapped and bagged on Long Island
(It was really close, anyway.) The Brits capture old George and several
important personages. (What to do with him? Hang him as triator? There's a
problem in and of itself.) The winter drags on with no George, no real army,
a dispirited public. England offers attempts at negotiations, including
important concessions to coerce public sentiment. In the Spring and Summer
English forces take Philadelphia, and institutue fairly benevolent policies,
including amnesty for any and all leaders and soldiers who will agree to put
down their arms and take an oath of loyalty. With Washington and the Army
gone France is not too terribly keen on the continental pospects for victory,
and settles back to a cautious, pro-sentiment neutrality. Within a year or
two the fire of rebellion dies down and an accord is reached. The colonies
achieve a sort of commonwealth/dominion status, and trade begins to flow more
or less freely again . . . .
Anyone want to take it from there . . . .