I'm inclined to say that there would be better social and economic development if they remained loyal to the crown, as slave owners are likely to have their influence curtailed much sooner and much more dramatically, however I am not knowledgeable enough about this topic to isolate the flaws of British rule. Within the metrics of education, affluence, live expectancy, quality of living and social equality, how would a British North America compare to the USA?
Would a British North America be more, or less developed than the United States OTL?
- Thread starter Johnyaazz
- Start date
Thing is there are a lot of things that happen between 1776 and now In the US.
so just to pick a pair of factors
I think a big part of how the US is now is instigated by the idea of the US being this place you could go to pursue your future with more options and opportunities and removed from a lot of the old world and old world led colonial baggage, and how such broad range* of people went for that and the wider attitudes within the US that them doing so fostered.
and how you would maintain that draw along side the colonies staying under the British crown would be tricky.
*and I'm not just talking about national and ethnic diversity here
so just to pick a pair of factors
I think a big part of how the US is now is instigated by the idea of the US being this place you could go to pursue your future with more options and opportunities and removed from a lot of the old world and old world led colonial baggage, and how such broad range* of people went for that and the wider attitudes within the US that them doing so fostered.
and how you would maintain that draw along side the colonies staying under the British crown would be tricky.
*and I'm not just talking about national and ethnic diversity here
Last edited:
I would say less developed. The British were trying to prevent the growth of American industries, and manufacturing so as to force the Colonies to buy British goods. They were also trying to prevent colonial trade with anyone other than England, to prevent trade competition. This was strangling the colonial economy and draining all the specie out of the Colonies reducing them to a barter economy. They were also trying to prevent the Colonists from settling the lands west of the Proclamation Line, so the lands west of the Mississippi River might never have become part of British North America. These were the basic issues along with taxation without representation that led to the ARW.
I think BNA expands beyond the Appalachians, but I imagine far less multiethnic immigration occurs, more along homogenous lines - like Australia and New Zealand (primarily English, Scottish, and Welsh). Australia did not really permit mass immigration from Southern and Central Europe until after WWII. Canada of course had some multiethnic immigration, but I think it would be a lot less pronounced.
On the other hand, during the early part of Industrial Revolution Britain led the way and the US had to indulge in a lot of industrial espionage or use of British expertise to launch its own new style economy. It's often said that British foreign policy is basically pragmatic and that it dealt with many issues of the era by bending rather than breaking, so maybe if there had been unrest but no war, the British may have put more emphasis on developing North America.
The butterflies are huge given the 250 year window for change, but based on comparing the modern US with countries that remained British for longer like Canada, Australia, NZ and the UK itself, a US that remained British, compared to OTL US would likely:
Pros/better developed British North America:
Pros/better developed British North America:
- Likely to have better and universal healthcare
- Likely to have less poverty and homelessness
- Likely to have less violent crime and gun-related crime
- Likely to have more social equality
- May have better public transport infrastructure (although still behind Continental Europe and East Asian nations)
- Probably would have abolished slavery earlier and less violently
- Less immigration and diversity, food/cultural options might be more limited
- Possibly less innovation and economic dynamism
- OTL world leading and dominant economic/soft power sectors like finance, information technology and media would look very different or be butterflied away. London remains the leading financial and media centre, as for the tech sector, who knows.
- Education - both are strong OTL
- Taxation - would be higher, for better or worse
- Environment
- Race relations with African Americans and Native Americans - probably just as bad based on experiences in the British dominions
Last edited:
Much larger African American population. Slave importation stopped in 1808, in this TL it would continue till 1833. Far greater levels of racial violence if the British free the slaves in the South. The White population will be desperate to maintain White Supremacy since Black numbers are so high.
Last edited:
I'm pretty inclined to think that a "greater Canada" would struggle with a lot of problems in the long term that America IOTL didn't have, and not really receive much benefit in return. It likely would never obtain the Mexican Cession which would seriously hinder economic development; I don't think that California and Texas can be easily discounted in how their territories assisted the USA as a unit. Louisiana even may not end up as part of alt-America, which would be a serious problem as it removes control of the Mississippi from America. This alt-America would also be bound to some degree to Britain and her ambitions which means that alt-America is going to be bound up in a number of geopolitical conflicts which will be trouble. After all, I doubt America will be able to as readily trade with nations such as France, Germany, or Russia, which while not the largest markets certainly were important for America in the 19th and 20th centuries. And none of this is to mention how Britain actively tried to keep industrial manufacturing back at home and only trade manufactured goods to her colonies, rather than encourage domestic production. The crippling of early American industrialization would likely have massive ripple effects that would dramatically weaken the future alt-America.
But I think most important will be the fact that America may not end up with a written Constitution. Say what you will about America's civics system and wherever it may have failed, I can only imagine that any of those failings would be amplified if America lacked a proper, codified legal system.
But I think most important will be the fact that America may not end up with a written Constitution. Say what you will about America's civics system and wherever it may have failed, I can only imagine that any of those failings would be amplified if America lacked a proper, codified legal system.
Britain banned the slave trade in 1807, and through military force, bribery, blackmail and via peace treaties forced other nations to follow suit. 26 years later they abolished slavery altogether.
Plus, I would also see a much larger South Asian population. Not to the degree of the various Caribbean islands or Guyana, but I could certainly see a large number of Indian* indentured workers brought to the south.
(I am aware that the US tried something like this IOTL, on a more limited scale.)
*and possibly Malaysian and Chinese too
The moral movements against slavery both in The British Isles and in the American Northeast would no doubt still be as strong, and would still seek aggressive action both politically and economically to curtail slavery. After all Britain in OTL still had to contend with the strong pro-slavery Libby if the Carribbean planters, and still powered through.
I do think though that if an ARW is averted in the late 1700s, you might see some sort of rebellion by both Southern and Carribbean planters in the mid 1800s.
Typho
Banned
This analysis feels a bit frozen in time, as if it remains in 1770, but how would things develop after that decade, the trajectory?
Each year that goes by, colonists grow in population, either they get concessions or revolution happens eventually.
As we can see with the later British empire, it moved towards buying imperial goods, and each settler colony had their own trade policies. Also the bit about preventing settlers from expanding wasn't true. They wanted a break from the wars with Indian tribes, the country was in massive debt at the time, and they already moved the proclamation line when asked. So it was a temporary measure. It is likely all of the US and Canada would be taken, perhaps more. A British America would be overpowered rather than debuffed.
As for the taxation thing, they didn't want to be taxed even if they got representation. They wanted statutory neglect, as in autonomy.
The US and UK banned the slave trade in 1807 if I'm correct, so that means the American view on some aspects of slavery was synchronized with Britain.
I haven't heard anyone talk about this, but don't settler colonies have different systems from other colonies. Responsible government for Canada (nova Scotia) was 1840s, with the 13 colonies around that would happen earlier. And doesn't responsible government mean Britain can't make laws for the colony anymore? It's up to the elected colonial representatives? And there isn't a federal or central government either to ban or allow slavery? So if the UK has no legislative power, it can't ban slavery, unlike the federal gov, in 1772 slavery was only banned in England and Wales because of different courts/jurisdictions.
Last edited:
Typho
Banned
Where else would they go?
Colonial America was already multiethnic. Around 75% Anglo the rest Germans, Swedes, Dutch, French.
What I think would be the change is, it retains its protestant migration patterns (Irish are likely exempted due to being in Britain).
So the Ellis Island migrations would likely be retconned at least in magnitude. I mean there has been Italian or even polish migration since day zero, Columbus. So America already lost its opportunity to be 90%+ Anglo-Celtic like Australia and New Zealand by 1770.
Instead of the US having to steal UK secrets, they already have access, and a larger industrial base to build from (England). So industrialism in the US would be supercharged.
As it's an entire continent, it can't really replicate England, so it's naturally going to be different. Public transport outside of cities aren't practical in the same way the smaller British isles are. Or gun culture, which was a very colonial thing which exists in 🇨🇦🇳🇿🇦🇺, and the gun crime aspect is more 20th century related.
As for migration patterns, they'd be less variety. But foods and cultural options wouldn't be limited at all. People have access to recipe books, or foreign entertainment like anime or K-pop or french music etc.
Ironically taxation would be less, a small island might be able to have an empire, but it certainly can't tax them. I think tariffs as a trade barrier are more plausible, although correct me if I'm wrong 👍.
Environment or more specifically nature would be less stressed and used, as the population would be smaller with different migration patterns, there is only so many people available to migrate.
Do you know if Newfoundland, Canada, Australia or New Zealand have that migration pattern pre-1950?
From what I've read, Indians that wanted to migrate to Canada went to US, and that was where the various plots and mutinies in the British Raj were created.
Last edited:
The Westminster Parliament was the highest authority in the Empire and had more than enough power to over rule any of the Colonial assemblies. The colonies may have had internal self government, but mother was watching and mother could say no.
Typho
Banned
Say no to something new, but something already established? Is there any examples of this happening post-responsible government?
The Caribbean colonies had their own assemblies and laws, but in the end when Westminster said slavery was being abolished it was abolished. They tried to work around it by converting slaves to apprentices/indentured servants but were very quickly brought into line.