How early would you need to change American colonial history to guarantee an Anglo-American sovereign relationship close as Anglo-Canadian in 1883?

[raharris1973]

Alright folks, 5 days only for this poll, 5 days -

How early would you need to change American colonial history to guarantee an Anglo-American sovereign relationship close as Anglo-Canadian in 1883?

Or to phrase it differently:

How early must (the situation of)13 Colonies change to guarantee that in 1883 they are still close as Canada? (to Britain)

The purpose of this is for consecutive polling to derive a general consensus position on a reasonable/plausible accepted scenario for what we know as the US and UK to still have a sovereign relationship as close as what the UK and Canada had in 1883, in an alternate 1883, one century after their real-world divorce settlement.

If, among the multiple choices, there is *no way* from that point in time, the 13 Colonies/pre-USA could have stayed together that close, that long, *do not* vote for it But, if you think that in any of the time frames listed in the multiple choices, the two could have held together for a century or more, you may vote for it. Certainly make sure to vote for what you think is latest scenario that would have reasonably allowed the two to stick together long haul. (I'm not sure if I am offering one choice per voter, or multiple. If multiple, feel free to vote for the *latest* possible time for reconciliation/unity, and any earlier times.

How will I use this poll's results?

I will use this as the basis for poll and discussion on predictions for the life of a more prolonged "British America". And I will define how America stayed British, by eliminating wjhat appears as the *least popular*/*least believable* /*least supported* options from the poll.

Happy to answer any clarifying questions, but I don't plan to get into prolonged discussion of the substantive question before moving on to the next issue within this issue.

 

[Lalli]

It should need that Brits manage to defeat Americans before arrival of French. But even then afterwards London should take bit better policy over North American colonies not keep people there as second class citizens.

 

[raharris1973]

UK would have had to definitively crushed Colonial tax resistance by 1768​

......got my vote.

Britain needed to have established the American colonies' subordination to Parliamentary rules, including revenue raising measures for imperial purposes, by no later than 1768 and the Bourbon revival, with the Colonies accepting the "Virtual Representation" they already had by the existing system of electing Parliament, rotten boroughs and badly drawn constituencies and no specific American constituencies at all, or with the grant of representative members to the Westminster Parliament. If that sense of the Parliament being *their* Parliament and lawful master, along with the King, is not there by then the sense of separate nationhood is already there to the point that even if one rebellion fails, another national rebellion, with the growing population, is just a decade or two around the corner.

 

[raharris1973]

OK, as we are on day 5, I want to encourage more voting, (17 are not enough!), and especially more discussion, just one explaining responder to the OP, one like, and the OP explaining there vote certainly isn't enough!

This is the American Revolution and the broader issue of American independence folks! It has been a hot topic of althist speculation for over 200 years, surely there are more opinions to be articulated, discussed, debated on it. And not just for the revolution and independence fight as we knew it in 1776, but for whether the alt-US could be content as an alt-Canada a century after it failed to become independent. Seems ripe for discussion to me.

One the one hand, maybe its a what-if, "done to death", on the other hand, the board's appetite for discussing dynastic and power politics and rivalries of 18th (and 17th and 16th) century European states, from the same cultural milieu, seems boundlless, so let's give it more of a go, shall we?

The standings now appear to give Britain a chance to hold on to America from a rather late point, after Lexington & Concord, after suppressing rebellion, and then the non-USA (at least that part which was BNA, east of the Mississippi) remaining as loyal a Dominion to the UK a la Canada as late as 1883 as possibly 80 million (with Canada 84 million), far beating out Britain at 35 million. The results in favor of late unity being possible beat only earlier PoDs making possible as of today by 10 votes to 7.

It is also interesting that one of the two most popular watershed or last-chance moments chosen, at four votes, is the Olive Branch Petition of 1775, post the violence at Lexington and Concord, and what the Americans called the "Intolerable Acts" meant to punish the port of Boston got zero votes, although those got the other 12 colonies to rally round Massachusetts. If I were to pick something as late as the mid-1770s, I'd have picked the Intolerable Acts. The other most popular "last chance" moment as of today with four votes is crushing Colonial tax resistance by 1768, which I voted for and explained my rationale. There was an opposing choice offered for the same time frame, appeasing the Colonial anti-tax movement by the same year entirely, but it loses to crushing by 4 to 1. And the earlier options offered, each got only one vote, including a structural one quite often offered offhand - that the banishing of the threat of New France in North America fatally weakened the common political ties of interest between the 13 Colonies and the mother country.

 

[FasterThanRaito]

I think you could have combined options #2 and 3, since they mean basically the same thing: France doesn't help enough and so the war ends in American defeat

Basically it looks like over half the votes say things could have turned around after 1775, with a third saying things could have been turned around after the war stated

 

[raharris1973]

I think you could have combined options #2 and 3, since they mean basically the same thing: France doesn't help enough and so the war ends in American defeat

Basically it looks like over half the votes say things could have turned around after 1775, with a third saying things could have been turned around after the war stated

Good points.

 

[LordVorKon]

I feel that any POD after July 1776 is probably too late for a close relationship. Yes, there are numerous points where the British can win (defined as keeping the colonies inside the empire), but I'm pretty sure that most PODs after the Declaration of Independence is revealed to the public are going to result in at best a relationship more akin to Anglo-Indian or Anglo-Irish, than Anglo-Canadian.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I feel that any POD after July 1776 is probably too late for a close relationship. Yes, there are numerous points where the British can win (defined as keeping the colonies inside the empire), but I'm pretty sure that most PODs after the Declaration of Independence is revealed to the public are going to result in at best a relationship more akin to Anglo-Indian or Anglo-Irish, than Anglo-Canadian.

Britain didn't have the wherewithal to occupy the whole of the Thirteen Colonies by military force, so a British victory is almost certainly going to be accompanied or brought about by granting concessions to bring the rebels back onboard.

 

[Legofan4]

Britain didn't have the wherewithal to occupy the whole of the Thirteen Colonies by military force, so a British victory is almost certainly going to be accompanied or brought about by granting concessions to bring the rebels back onboard.

Once major concessions are granted there will be more in the future because there will be decisions taken in London that the large and getting larger colonies are not going to be ok with. Especially if representation in Parliament isn't one of those concessions.

Once the white population of all the British colonies is larger than the UK proper I foresee large problems. I don't really see how it can get resolved without devolving power so much it becomes little more than the modern commonwealth.

 

[HyperMuscularDemon]

How about during the American Civil War? Given that Britain had abolished slavery already by 1861, if the British give more support on the Union side of the American Civil War, then it could be possible that America grows closer to Britain.

 

[Legofan4]

How about during the American Civil War? Given that Britain had abolished slavery already by 1861, if the British give more support on the Union side of the American Civil War, then it could be possible that America grows closer to Britain.

The U.S. government may grow closer to Britain but by the time of the Civil War the U.S. has been independent for almost a century and has developed an identity much separate from British colonies. There is no way they would go back to being a British colony like those in what would become Canada.

 

[raharris1973]

How about during the American Civil War? Given that Britain had abolished slavery already by 1861, if the British give more support on the Union side of the American Civil War, then it could be possible that America grows closer to Britain.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiB8Yaa0p-GAxWJAzQIHWklC10Q78AJegQIFhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DhhkkwxFiDTM&usg=AOvVaw1AF21_9plU7kq70BQRnf0-&opi=89978449

Aaawwww -

Reunited ...... and it feels so good....

...yeah.....no

nice thought though

 

[Grey Wolf]

I think the Seven Years War creates the problem. Previous wars saw most the lands lost go back to the loser, but here not

 

[unprincipled peter]

The Canada and USA situations are different.
In Canada, when New France was taken over, Britain bent over backwards to placate the French occupants, and then the colony was inundated with English loyalists. The entire country was fearful of the USA, and too small to go it alone. Britain had learned their lesson from the ARW, and left the colony more or less autonomous. Thus, Canada was allowed to easily evolve into an autonomous Dominion.

In the US, after being largely given an easy hand, Britain seemingly openly favored the northern step child. Gains in the maritime provinces were given back to the French as trading chits. Then after taking over New France, Britain gave the Northwest Territory/Ohio (the whole reason for the French and Indian War of 1754) to the north. The US colonies, taken as a whole, had grown quite large, and wanted more autonomy than Britain was willing to give. They had no credible foreign threat (New France need not apply). The colonies biggest threat was the natives, and Britain would not give the colonist freedom in action (or aid) against them.



I would say a better colonial policy requires a more conciliatory approach from the early 18th century, and less of onerous approach from mid 18th century. Ironically, the French and Indian War probably set the stage for the revolution. The war started as a quest to expand British North America, and ended up eventually losing it. It might have been better for Britain (in future USA) to just let France have Ohio, let New France grow, and grant limited gradual autonomy to the lower 15 (don't forget the 2 Floridas, although without a French and Indian War and possibly no 7YW associated, Florida may remain Spanish). Without the Intolerable Acts, but with a stronger New France, the lower 13-15 might find an easier path to grow closer.

The lessons learned from the French and Indian War through ARW paved the way for the Canadian experience. Of the choices given, I picked beating down the revolution, but that also requires the two sides learning from the conflict, but that's easier said than done.

 

[raharris1973]

Thanks, we've got a few more verbalized, articulated responses that sound like they joined me in "team early solution needed".

If you've replied in the comments already, I respectfully request you vote as well and chime in to specify what you picked from the multiple choice. I didn't provide a list as long a as a third of the alphabet (though still not exhaustive), for it not to be used.

So, the current standings of the votes as of 1:41pm EST on Weds are a 17: 17 tie between British-American problems having to be resolved before the outbreak of organized, militarized violence at Lexington and Concord, or it being possible to still resolve the issues and maintain the Imperial union after the outbreak of that violence.

Interesting new additions to the thread include:

How about during the American Civil War? Given that Britain had abolished slavery already by 1861, if the British give more support on the Union side of the American Civil War, then it could be possible that America grows closer to Britain.

As optimistic outlier, venturing a guess that voluntary reunion, confederation or some functional equivalent to it could occur nearly ninety years after the outbreak of Revolutionary War fight. I cannot code it as our most optimistic choice, ,

It could happened as late as a War of reconquest started by 1800​

it is more optimistic in its lateness of success, but I guess it did not *explicitly* promise true political reunion.

And we have @Grey Wolf and @unprincipled peter joining in as the outliers in the "even more pessimistic than me" school, basically saying that the Seven Years Wars victory, or to a degree, earlier waning and waxing administration, already spoiled things beyond repair *before* 1768.

This is very interesting.

 

[raharris1973]

Now I voted on the early, prevention, crushing of the war and Continental Congress movement before any substantial war is the only way to keep it together side of things.

But I don't want to dismiss the whole half who voted about the possibility of the American revolution, independence, and the fight for it being a *failed experiment* being suppressed by the *superpower of the day*, by various causes like superpower resource superiority, rebel mistakes and misfortune, and rebel failure to get great power or "superpower" or peer power support.

While the geopolitical situation was different, the juggling of priorities was different, and so on, an analogy I could draw is that the southern secessionist movement, despite many southern citizens (yes including whites) lack of personal enthusiasm for the idea and cause, had quite solid political elite, community leader, judicial, police and military support across the southern seceding states when the chips came down to fighting. Yet the rebellion was defeated, the southerners became fine patriots again, who despite nostalgia about the rebellion, never attempted secession again, merely cosplayed from time to time. [Lack of full enforcement of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments and Reconstruction era Civil Rights laws, and lack of tolerance for policies of Reconstruction era state government, indeed, violent opposition to all those things may all be bad and illegal, but what it was not, was another secession attempt, or refighting the Civil War. It was just wiping the moral icing off the Union preservation cake.]

If the rebellion occurs but is crushed, what space might it occupy in the minds and myths of later North Americans? Later Britons?

Bloodthirsty radicals or mobs?

A smugglers and slavers ring gone out of control?

Some decent people, misguided by demagogues?

Or a worthy and honorable, but doomed, cause, that must make way for reconciliation?

*The great cause* that *must rise again* and find America's true independent place?

A tragic bloodletting of brothers who must reconcile?

Because I wonder, if the following thing might happen after a defeated revolution, despite any punishments or penalties meted out, and rewards to loyalists, or any amnesties or concessions offered in return for surrender or reconciliation within the framework of empire or personal union. Perhaps the Continental flag and Continental uniforms and some slogans within a decade or two become admired cultural/regional symbols in North America. Symbols of regional/continental identity and pride, but without any serious intention of rebelling again. They become commoditized as symbol of personal vigor, defiance, and masculine rogue-ishness and willingness to bend the rules or break them if it feels right or just. The tarring and feathering of loyalists and confiscation of their properties gets glossed over, maybe even eventually in Britain and other British colonies, and the flag and Continental rebel symbols gain a little popularity even there as similar cultural signifiers. In the age of television, in America or Britain, there's a show about moonshiners, I don't care where, maybe Georgia, maybe Pennsylvania, maybe Maine, maybe East Anglia or the Cotswolds, and they're evading corrupt local law enforcement, and their trusty car they have their adventures in has the Continental flag painted on top and is called "The General Washington".

I am of course making an analogy with the 70s-80s TV show, "The Dukes of Hazzard" and its iconic red "General Lee" car crested by the CSA naval jack on top for its first seasons.

Could alternate history rhyme in this manner? Or something like it, and not so *exactly* on the nose?

 

[PGSBHurricane]

I think the American Revolution up until Saratoga is possible. It was after that battle (as a result of it) IOTL when the French become official allies to the Americans. Before then, if America lost the Revolution then the British would have been in a position to punish the colonies and mold them into Loyal entities. If the US lost the American Revolution after that point though, British would’ve had to make some concessions as they would have had the French to deal with too as it would be a closer outcome than before Saratoga.

 

[unprincipled peter]

Now I voted on the early, prevention, crushing of the war and Continental Congress movement before any substantial war is the only way to keep it together side of things.

But I don't want to dismiss the whole half who voted about the possibility of the American revolution, independence, and the fight for it being a *failed experiment* being suppressed by the *superpower of the day*, by various causes like superpower resource superiority, rebel mistakes and misfortune, and rebel failure to get great power or "superpower" or peer power support.

While the geopolitical situation was different, the juggling of priorities was different, and so on, an analogy I could draw is that the southern secessionist movement, despite many southern citizens (yes including whites) lack of personal enthusiasm for the idea and cause, had quite solid political elite, community leader, judicial, police and military support across the southern seceding states when the chips came down to fighting. Yet the rebellion was defeated, the southerners became fine patriots again, who despite nostalgia about the rebellion, never attempted secession again, merely cosplayed from time to time. [Lack of full enforcement of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments and Reconstruction era Civil Rights laws, and lack of tolerance for policies of Reconstruction era state government, indeed, violent opposition to all those things may all be bad and illegal, but what it was not, was another secession attempt, or refighting the Civil War. It was just wiping the moral icing off the Union preservation cake.]

If the rebellion occurs but is crushed, what space might it occupy in the minds and myths of later North Americans? Later Britons?

Bloodthirsty radicals or mobs?

A smugglers and slavers ring gone out of control?

Some decent people, misguided by demagogues?

Or a worthy and honorable, but doomed, cause, that must make way for reconciliation?

*The great cause* that *must rise again* and find America's true independent place?

A tragic bloodletting of brothers who must reconcile?

Because I wonder, if the following thing might happen after a defeated revolution, despite any punishments or penalties meted out, and rewards to loyalists, or any amnesties or concessions offered in return for surrender or reconciliation within the framework of empire or personal union. Perhaps the Continental flag and Continental uniforms and some slogans within a decade or two become admired cultural/regional symbols in North America. Symbols of regional/continental identity and pride, but without any serious intention of rebelling again. They become commoditized as symbol of personal vigor, defiance, and masculine rogue-ishness and willingness to bend the rules or break them if it feels right or just. The tarring and feathering of loyalists and confiscation of their properties gets glossed over, maybe even eventually in Britain and other British colonies, and the flag and Continental rebel symbols gain a little popularity even there as similar cultural signifiers. In the age of television, in America or Britain, there's a show about moonshiners, I don't care where, maybe Georgia, maybe Pennsylvania, maybe Maine, maybe East Anglia or the Cotswolds, and they're evading corrupt local law enforcement, and their trusty car they have their adventures in has the Continental flag painted on top and is called "The General Washington".

I am of course making an analogy with the 70s-80s TV show, "The Dukes of Hazzard" and its iconic red "General Lee" car crested by the CSA naval jack on top for its first seasons.

Could alternate history rhyme in this manner? Or something like it, and not so *exactly* on the nose?

IMO, once things get to a "we're all going to band together and fight for freedom from tyranny", the situation has gone too far for a likely "we're all happy to be part of the British Empire" outcome. The rebellion can be defeated, but those defeated will teach their children to hate the British. It'll be the great cause that needs to rise again situation. Now, maybe after crushing the rebellion, Britain realizes they can't keep the empire forever by force, so they grant a dominion/autonomy, but it's much, much easier to come to that realization before things erupt into bloodshed.

Once independence is gained, things have to go dramatically wrong in the new country for reconquest to have a chance. And Britain may not be able to garner the domestic support necessary to attempt reconquest and that's IF they even want to.

OTL, Britain and USA did form a close bond. They quickly resumed a healthy trade relationship, and aside from a few semi tense moments that were more jingo than actually coming close to blows, developed into a friendly relationship. So, maybe there should be a button listing OTL as an option.

 

[Umbric Man]

and grant limited gradual autonomy to the lower 15 (don't forget the 2 Floridas, although without a French and Indian War and possibly no 7YW associated, Florida may remain Spanish)

I'm giving a narrow-minded focus only to this particular bit, but if we have "limited to the eastern seaboard" America, then all they need for completion is East Florida - particularly its 1783-1819 border at the Suwanee River to match Georgia's then-boundary of the Altamaha - and Nova Scotia - INCLUDING New Brunswick but NOT Ile-Royal (Cape Breton and PEI) - to directly connect to Maine.

Spain or preferably France (why would Spain care on holding West Florida if it doesn't hold East?) territorially secures New Orleans and the Mississippi watershed if it holds West Florida, while France holding Ile-Royal allows it one of the two keys into the Gulf of St. Lawrence (the other being Newfoundland, French-settled Plaisance being ceded in 1713 and its inhabitants... er, explicitly relocating to Cape Breton as the Colony of Ile-Royal) and thus a lifeline to Canada in particular and New France in general. The mainland Maritimes of NS/NB and East Florida becoming British in time gives a bit of expansion room to Americans while giving them a miniature security buff since they're protected north-to-south via the Appalachians down to the Altamaha/Suwanee Rivers.

In effect, have East Florida and New Brunswick (not just Nova Scotia) captured by Britain and West Florida successfully devastated by the Creeks during Queen Anne's War so Spain just abandons "Florida" in general to France (West) and Britain (East) and Britain has indisputable control over the eastern seaboard and Newfoundland as claimed since the 1580s. That may actually help keep things a bit more stable on the ground for colonial North America without small rival colonies pestering one another (Spanish Florida neighboring Georgia, British Nova Scotia surrounded by French Ile-Royal and rump Acadia/New Brunswick) but instead long, de-jure borders defined by geography against and easy access within.

No doubt Nova Scotia will quickly become an extended part of New England and East Florida that of Dixie in time, culturally, as well.

 

[HyperMuscularDemon]

What about taxing the British East India Company for money instead of the American colonies? That way, Britain can gain money and the Thirteen Colonies can avoid being taxed.