• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

What if the British Empire had Triumphed in North America

David Flin

I see through a glass darkly
Steve Payne and Jeff Provine, from Today in Alternate History, present here one view of what might have happened had the American War of Independence gone differently. It seems appropriate given the current US Presidential Election and the recent British election to wonder how these might have been historically combined.

Discuss this article Here.
 
Very interesting. I love PODs related to American independence, it always feels like one of those things that is taken for granted but very much not set in stone. But most of the existing PODs seem to focus on stopping the war before the Patriots gain the upper hand (as I did for a short vignette) or preventing it happening altogether - very interesting to see one where the war does happen, and Britain wins it in a very typically perfidious way! Love the look at the social consequences of the war being won, too.
 
The idea Slavery would end in 1833 as it did IOTL is one of those weird things that always crops up in these scenarios. The Crown was deeply tied into the slave-trading Royal African Company and repeatedly used its power to overrule efforts by the Colonies themselves to limit the trade:

Before the American Revolution, both the colonies and Great Britain regulated the African slave trade to what became the United States. The British government gave special protection to the Royal African Company, which brought more Africans slaves to the American colonies than any other single entity. The slave trade was an important part of Britain's mercantile policy: it collected taxes on the slaves while colonial governments both taxed them and occasionally sought to limit their arrivals.​
After the Stono Rebellion (1739), South Carolina suspended the trade for a few years because its leaders believed that large numbers of freshly imported Africans would undermine the safety of the colony. Then in 1751 South Carolina imposed a special tax on foreign slaves to slow the trade and, nine years later, once again banned it altogether because leaders of the colony still feared the growing number of African-born slaves. The royal authorities disallowed the law. But in 1764 the colony levied new taxes on African-born slaves because, as the legislature noted, their rising number "may prove of the most dangerous consequence."​
Shortly before the Revolution, Virginia also tried to ban the trade, not for prudential reasons but to prevent the outflow of capital from the colony. Virginians attempted to use prohibitive taxes to discourage the trade, but the Crown overruled this law, because the slave trade was vital to the British economy and because the Royal African Company had powerful patrons in the government.
Obviously, American independence removed this as an institutional issue for Britain, but here it would remain and thus most definitely setback emancipation efforts. Further, to my knowledge, Britain never once seriously considered anything other than compensated emancipation, which would probably be cost prohibitive here. How they were able to afford that IOTL was because the collapse of the sugar trade and the closure of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade made it cost effective to buy the freedom of enslaved populations within the Empire.
 
The idea Slavery would end in 1833 as it did IOTL is one of those weird things that always crops up in these scenarios. The Crown was deeply tied into the slave-trading Royal African Company and repeatedly used its power to overrule efforts by the Colonies themselves to limit the trade:

Before the American Revolution, both the colonies and Great Britain regulated the African slave trade to what became the United States. The British government gave special protection to the Royal African Company, which brought more Africans slaves to the American colonies than any other single entity. The slave trade was an important part of Britain's mercantile policy: it collected taxes on the slaves while colonial governments both taxed them and occasionally sought to limit their arrivals.​
After the Stono Rebellion (1739), South Carolina suspended the trade for a few years because its leaders believed that large numbers of freshly imported Africans would undermine the safety of the colony. Then in 1751 South Carolina imposed a special tax on foreign slaves to slow the trade and, nine years later, once again banned it altogether because leaders of the colony still feared the growing number of African-born slaves. The royal authorities disallowed the law. But in 1764 the colony levied new taxes on African-born slaves because, as the legislature noted, their rising number "may prove of the most dangerous consequence."​
Shortly before the Revolution, Virginia also tried to ban the trade, not for prudential reasons but to prevent the outflow of capital from the colony. Virginians attempted to use prohibitive taxes to discourage the trade, but the Crown overruled this law, because the slave trade was vital to the British economy and because the Royal African Company had powerful patrons in the government.
Obviously, American independence removed this as an institutional issue for Britain, but here it would remain and thus most definitely setback emancipation efforts. Further, to my knowledge, Britain never once seriously considered anything other than compensated emancipation, which would probably be cost prohibitive here. How they were able to afford that IOTL was because the collapse of the sugar trade and the closure of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade made it cost effective to buy the freedom of enslaved populations within the Empire.
Apt point. And, though the transatlantic trade continued illicitly, the U.S. banned slave importations from 1808, which won't happen here, and the British, as parties to the Congress of Vienna in OTL would vaguely do so after 1815. Of course, the French Revolution is very different here should it still happen at all or even anytime soon relative to the POD.
 
Apt point. And, though the transatlantic trade continued illicitly, the U.S. banned slave importations from 1808, which won't happen here, and the British, as parties to the Congress of Vienna in OTL would vaguely do so after 1815.

One statistic that always lingers in my mind on this topic is that, IOTL from 1780 to 1810, more African Slaves were imported to the United States than in the previous 160 years combined. That's with the U.S. banning the trade nationally in 1808 and with several Southern States, including South Carolina, instituting State-level restrictions even before 1808. Cotton alone doesn't explain this either; As late as 1800 only about 11 percent of all slaves lived on cotton plantations. Slave labor was being used in the production in everything from tobacco, to rice, to sugar and finally to cereal crops like corn and wheat on a profitable basis.

IOTL, the (mostly) shutting off of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade in 1808 is probably the only thing that prevented Slavery from becoming established in the Midwest and possibly much of the Mid-Atlantic. Here, it probably does given the Crown and the British Government at large has a financial incentive to keep the flow open for longer.


Slavery_in_the_13_colonies.jpg


Of course, the French Revolution is very different here should it still happen at all or even anytime soon relative to the POD.

Presuming the French don't get into any other foreign adventures, I'm inclined to think it's at the least delayed and doesn't go as radical as it did IOTL:

French involvement in the Seven Years’ War and the American War of Independence added substantially to the state’s debts. Jacques Necker, finance minister from 1777 and 1781, had largely funded France’s war effort through loans. As a result the state debt ballooned to between 8 and 12 billion livres by 1789. Serving that debt consumed an increasing share of state revenue. Moreover, worries over France’s creditworthiness meant loans could only be acquired at higher rates of interest.​
Fiscal and diplomatic problems came together in 1787. The international prestige of the monarchy was undermined when it was unable to intervene in the conflict between republican and Orangist forces in the neighbouring United Provinces because of a lack of funds.​
The French involvement in the American War of Independence had an impact beyond the financial. The American rebels had fought under the slogan of ‘no taxation without representation’. Yet the French officers and soldiers did not enjoy the same political rights that their American allies were fighting for. The incongruity of an absolute monarchy fighting in defence of a republic founded on universal male suffrage (excluding slaves) was not lost on many commentators in France and Europe. The Marquis de Lafayette, who had served alongside George Washington, became a hero on both sides of the Atlantic. The Declaration of Independence provided inspiration to would-be reformers and revolutionaries in France. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence would provide a template for the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789.​
With that said, there's always the chance for the Monarchy to still shoot itself in the foot by getting involved in the War of the Bavarian Succession. I've also read, over at the other place so take it with a grain of salt, that French scouts were at work in Egypt and the Levant, laying the framework for future operations there against the Ottomans.
 
One statistic that always lingers in my mind on this topic is that, IOTL from 1780 to 1810, more African Slaves were imported to the United States than in the previous 160 years combined. That's with the U.S. banning the trade nationally in 1808 and with several Southern States, including South Carolina, instituting State-level restrictions even before 1808. Cotton alone doesn't explain this either; As late as 1800 only about 11 percent of all slaves lived on cotton plantations. Slave labor was being used in the production in everything from tobacco, to rice, to sugar and finally to cereal crops like corn and wheat on a profitable basis.

IOTL, the (mostly) shutting off of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade in 1808 is probably the only thing that prevented Slavery from becoming established in the Midwest and possibly much of the Mid-Atlantic. Here, it probably does given the Crown and the British Government at large has a financial incentive to keep the flow open for longer.


Slavery_in_the_13_colonies.jpg




Presuming the French don't get into any other foreign adventures, I'm inclined to think it's at the least delayed and doesn't go as radical as it did IOTL:

French involvement in the Seven Years’ War and the American War of Independence added substantially to the state’s debts. Jacques Necker, finance minister from 1777 and 1781, had largely funded France’s war effort through loans. As a result the state debt ballooned to between 8 and 12 billion livres by 1789. Serving that debt consumed an increasing share of state revenue. Moreover, worries over France’s creditworthiness meant loans could only be acquired at higher rates of interest.​
Fiscal and diplomatic problems came together in 1787. The international prestige of the monarchy was undermined when it was unable to intervene in the conflict between republican and Orangist forces in the neighbouring United Provinces because of a lack of funds.​
The French involvement in the American War of Independence had an impact beyond the financial. The American rebels had fought under the slogan of ‘no taxation without representation’. Yet the French officers and soldiers did not enjoy the same political rights that their American allies were fighting for. The incongruity of an absolute monarchy fighting in defence of a republic founded on universal male suffrage (excluding slaves) was not lost on many commentators in France and Europe. The Marquis de Lafayette, who had served alongside George Washington, became a hero on both sides of the Atlantic. The Declaration of Independence provided inspiration to would-be reformers and revolutionaries in France. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence would provide a template for the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789.​
With that said, there's always the chance for the Monarchy to still shoot itself in the foot by getting involved in the War of the Bavarian Succession. I've also read, over at the other place so take it with a grain of salt, that French scouts were at work in Egypt and the Levant, laying the framework for future operations there against the Ottomans.
Would France have sided with Austria or Bavaria?
 
Would France have sided with Austria or Bavaria?

That I must admit I am unqualified to answer.

One scenario I've played around with before in this overall vein is that France does indeed refrain from getting into any adventures and then gradually reforms from the 1790s onwards into a Constitutional Monarchy. Meanwhile, British North America becomes dominated more and more by slave power interests which in turn asserts more and more influence in Britain itself due to the rising population and wealth of the BNA. Maybe George IV makes a play for Neo-Absolutism using the BNA like Caesar used Gaul until revolution sweeps British in the 1830s or 1840s, resulting in a radical republic in the Home Isles and the Monarchy decamping for North America.

It'd be fascinating for the inversion of France and Britain's fates in the time period, and then the BNA would basically be a sort of Quasi-Decades of Darkness like entity.
 
That I must admit I am unqualified to answer.

One scenario I've played around with before in this overall vein is that France does indeed refrain from getting into any adventures and then gradually reforms from the 1790s onwards into a Constitutional Monarchy. Meanwhile, British North America becomes dominated more and more by slave power interests which in turn asserts more and more influence in Britain itself due to the rising population and wealth of the BNA. Maybe George IV makes a play for Neo-Absolutism using the BNA like Caesar used Gaul until revolution sweeps British in the 1830s or 1840s, resulting in a radical republic in the Home Isles and the Monarchy decamping for North America.

It'd be fascinating for the inversion of France and Britain's fates in the time period, and then the BNA would basically be a sort of Quasi-Decades of Darkness like entity.
And India would end up in the BNA sphere?
 
The interesting thing is that at the time it was theoretically a corporate colony rather than a directly British one before 1857 in OTL.

To keep up with the inversions, maybe the French take advantage of British weakness to divide it between themselves and the Sikhs?
 
If BNA was incorporated into the UK with parliamentary representation etc, wouldn't that effectively imply the abolition of slavery per Somerset vs Stewart etc?
 
If BNA was incorporated into the UK with parliamentary representation etc, wouldn't that effectively imply the abolition of slavery per Somerset vs Stewart etc?
The Somerset case simply stated that, in the absence of any written law permitting slavery, slavery was illegal. Presumably the colonial assemblies would still have lawmaking powers even with the granting of representation, and so it wouldn't apply here.
 
The Somerset case simply stated that, in the absence of any written law permitting slavery, slavery was illegal. Presumably the colonial assemblies would still have lawmaking powers even with the granting of representation, and so it wouldn't apply here.

Suppose it depends on what governance model is used.

If it was full union similar to the incorporation of Ireland into the UK, or to the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves– thar would presumably imply British law extending to North America.
 
Suppose it depends on what governance model is used.

If it was full union similar to the incorporation of Ireland into the UK, or to the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves– thar would presumably imply British law extending to North America.
I mean neither of those examples existed at this point, and nobody was clamoring for the abolition of colonial assemblies and their replacement by representation. Plans for colonial representation featured MPs being allotted, in numbers well below what would be expected by population apportionment, between the colonies so they could consent to taxation (the big sticking point). Though whether these MPs were to be elected by the people of the colony or by the colonial assembly (just as they elected agents who were already MPs to informally represent them in Westminster) depended on the specific plan. Which isn't the same as those examples. There was also a plan, advocated by Adam Smith, of establishing a body akin to the Dutch Republic's States-General, which would represent delegates from all of the colonial assemblies along with delegates from Westminster, but that seems even less likely to result in the establishment of a single law.

And neither the Acts of Union 1800 nor the Acts of Union 1707 meant the end of Irish or Scottish law, respectfully. In those cases Irish and Scottish law continued (and continues) to exist, unless were to Parliament deliberately abolish them, which it didn't. In such a scenario, slavery would not be abolished, unless Parliament were to specifically pass an act on the subject. Without such an act, it would continue to be in effect.
 
Back
Top