The 13 Colonies stay British (discussion)

[stevep]

Jun 14, 2024 15:14:24 GMT michelvan said:

Jun 14, 2024 12:46:06 GMT stevep said:

Another option if France has occupied parts of N Africa is possibly there as it might welcome Christian - especially Catholic - setters to help secure the territories.

That tricky one since the 1830 invasion and occupied of what became Algeria
Because king Charles X authorise it, to distract people from internal french problems,
but he had to resign and Louis Philippe I became king until 1840s,

Here with surviving Louis XVI in TL, his son Louis XVII rules in France 1830s,
and not like Charles X absolutist, but unter control of Parlament, who has last word in matter !

  OK that probably isn't an option here then.  Part of the excuse for the occupation was to end the plague of the Barbary pirates who were the dominant factor in the coastal region.  However the need for prestige for the monarchy was probably a far more important factor.

[michelvan]

Jun 14, 2024 21:01:40 GMT stevep said:

the plague of the Barbary pirates

It was USA who ended the Barbary pirates, after those attack US freighter, No longer under British protection.
while paying tribute the US Navy was built.
what follow was the Barbary war of 1801 to 1805 and U.S. Marines first battle.
follow by U.S.–Algerian War of 1815

now in this TL i think that sooner or later The British Empire will deal with Barbary pirates
sink the pirates ships and occupy there bases in Tripoli, Algiers and Tunis

There wer not the only ones, next Britain were Netherland, Denmark, Sweden, France even Austria-Hungary were fighting the Barbary pirates.
Here we have allot POD to change history like Habsburg occupy Morocco or Tripoli in hands of British Empire.
and french never occupy Algiers...

[stevep]

Jun 15, 2024 6:28:21 GMT michelvan said:

Jun 14, 2024 21:01:40 GMT stevep said:

the plague of the Barbary pirates

It was USA who ended the Barbary pirates, after those attack US freighter, No longer under British protection.
while paying tribute the US Navy was built.
what follow was the Barbary war of 1801 to 1805 and U.S. Marines first battle.
follow by U.S.–Algerian War of 1815

now in this TL i think that sooner or later The British Empire will deal with Barbary pirates
sink the pirates ships and occupy there bases in Tripoli, Algiers and Tunis

There wer not the only ones, next Britain were Netherland, Denmark, Sweden, France even Austria-Hungary were fighting the Barbary pirates.
Here we have allot POD to change history like Habsburg occupy Morocco or Tripoli in hands of British Empire.
and french never occupy Algiers...

  The US played a role as did an Anglo-Dutch force with an attack on Algiers in 1816 but they continued to be an issue until the French occupation of the region, albeit a much deminished one for the great powers as the Corsairs generally avoided clashing with them.

[michelvan]

Jun 15, 2024 14:38:09 GMT stevep said:

The US played a role as did an Anglo-Dutch force with an attack on Algiers in 1816 but they continued to be an issue until the French occupation of the region, albeit a much deminished one for the great powers as the Corsairs generally avoided clashing with them.

Since we have NO napoleon Wars here in TL
it would ironic to have Admiral Nelson great Hour in this Barbary war 1801-1805 ?
while certain Napoleon Bonapart conquer Algier for France...

[michelvan]

Make this sense ?

Overview of Kingdom of Burgund and Dutch Republic (more confederation then a Republic)

1779
the Treaty of Teschen is sign, with France permit, Habsburg and Wittelsbacher exchange Territory
Habsburg get Bavaria while the Wittelbacher get Netherland Austria as Burgund and Wittelbacher Karl Theodor become King.

During 1779 to 1799
King Karl Theodor of Burgund manage to reform and make Burgund a prosperous Kingdom
However the Dutch Republic hamper the traffic to harbour of Antwerp, Gent and Zee-Brugge, do Dutch economic problems

1785
happens the Batavian revolution in Dutch in Republic (republicans vs Royalist) were Prussia intervene military in favour of King Willem V of Orangje.
after that King Willem V of Orangje extent his powers from Stadtholder of Republic, to King of confederation.

1789-1791
Do famine in 1789 let to uprise in The Principality of Liege, were the prince-bishop de Hoensbroeck flee, only to return with Austrian Army in 1791,
to restore bloody Catholic law and order.
He finds The Principality of Liege under control of King of Burgund, who arrest the former prince-bishop.
While in Vatican after generous donations by the Wittelbach, can take over The Principality of Liege, with prince-bishop of house Wittebach
This consolidate most of Burgund territory.

1799
King Karl Theodor I. died, his successor is cousin Maximilian Joseph become King of Burgund.


1806
King Willem V of Orangje died his son become Willem IV of Oranie-Nassau
Willem IV over time become more and more autocracy ruler,
Suppress the free press, exile politician who oppose him to Colonies,
Abolish freedom of Religion in favour of Protestantism.

1812
Famine hit Europe, in Dutch confederation erupt a revolt against Willem IV autocracy.
The confederation start to disintegrate as part with catholic majority seceded from Republic.
Staats-Barbrant, Staats-Vlandern and Staats-Opper-Gelre and Overmaas join the Kingdom of Burgund.
King Maximilian Joseph offers them safety.
in mean time Prussia army intervene in revolt, not restore law and order, but gain Territory !
Like Duchy of Guelders were Prussia hold claims since 1713.
King Willem IV escape the Dutch confederation to his german possession of house Nassau.

in end remains the Republic of Holland (Holland Utrecht Zeeland) and east province join the Holy Roman Reich of the German nation.
While the Kingdom of Burgund and Prussia extend there territory.

[michelvan]

back on France and Spain

In 1808 happen Putsch against King Charles 4th. of Spain by his Son as Ferdinand 7th. he rules ruled with iron fist and with Inquisition & torture.
During his reign the American Colonies declare independence what let to Mexico nation (and other south American Nations).
in 1815, prince Don Carlos remove his brother Ferdinand 7th. from the throne with help of french government who send french army, do Louis 16th demand
Don Carlos becomes King Carlos 5th under condition that He respect the new Spanish liberal Constitution of 1812.

I questions would Carlos 5th or his son Carlos 6th and Juan 3th. try to reconquer Mexico for Spanish crown, with French Help ?
It would be analog to Napoleon III adventure in Mexico 1862-1867
however how would react British Empire ?

[michelvan]

May 20, 2024 17:27:35 GMT stevep said:

Coupled with controlling much of the Polish heartlands this means that Prussia is likely to be far more focused eastwards towards Russia and SE towards Austria then be looking for lands in the west.

I notice that expansion of Prussia eastward will have two effects.

one:
The protestant Prussia gain large population of Polish Catholics.
would this let that protestantism not become State-religion so defended by Kings and Emperors of Prussia ?

also would they focus on new territory to consolidate there influence here
means Königberg remain Capital of Kingdom of Prussia instead of Berlin ?
would Prussia abandon there interest to united there west areas ?

Two:
A large Kingdom outside the Holy Roman Empire (HRE),
Yes Prussia is part of HRE but only Brandenburg-Prussia, the rest of Kingdom of Prussia lies outside !
Something what Austria-Hungary could consider as future threat
either new war with Prussia or conflict about who is next Emperor of HRE...

[stevep]

Aug 13, 2024 16:46:13 GMT michelvan said:

May 20, 2024 17:27:35 GMT stevep said:

Coupled with controlling much of the Polish heartlands this means that Prussia is likely to be far more focused eastwards towards Russia and SE towards Austria then be looking for lands in the west.

I notice that expansion of Prussia eastward will have two effects.

one:
The protestant Prussia gain large population of Polish Catholics.
would this let that protestantism not become State-religion so defended by Kings and Emperors of Prussia ?

also would they focus on new territory to consolidate there influence here
means Königberg remain Capital of Kingdom of Prussia instead of Berlin ?
would Prussia abandon there interest to united there west areas ?

Two:
A large Kingdom outside the Holy Roman Empire (HRE),
Yes Prussia is part of HRE but only Brandenburg-Prussia, the rest of Kingdom of Prussia lies outside !
Something what Austria-Hungary could consider as future threat
either new war with Prussia or conflict about who is next Emperor of HRE...

  Well on the 1st part it could go either way.  If they stay devoutly Calvinist Protestant and German in identity its going to increase unrest in the substantial Polish population in the new state.  If they become more multi-national then they become more like their Hapsburg rivals and fact the issue of are they German or not which would undermine their suitability in terms of being a champion of German nationalism and unification.  You might end up with somewhere in the west becoming the centre of a unified Germany which might exclude both Austrian and Prussian kingdoms, at least for a while.

  I think Berlin was already the capital of the overall Prussian kingdom at least by the time of Frederick the Great.

  On the 2nd I don't think it would greatly increase their potential for challenging the Hapsburg's as HRE as they would still have only one vote.  They do at this time have scattered but fairly small territories in western Germany as well as the Brandenburg region and part of Pomerania.  they will continue to be the primary rival to the Hapsburg's simply because of their size and the tension over Silesia.

[ewellholmes]

Aug 6, 2023 18:15:07 GMT michelvan said:

Now what if the American revolution fails in 1777 ?
(Thomas Fleming point out 13 events were the Americans battle had failed for Washington in book What If ?)

How would World History evolve if Britain rule over North America ?

One thing obvious is that British ignore Australia and New Zeeland for moment, and continue dump convicted in the 13 Colonies.

More interesting is what happen in Europe, special France do it role it play in failed American revolution.
i think that Revolution of 1789 will happen and Napoleon rise to power.
but the Coalition wars will be very different.

Slavery would become further entrenched in "American" society, given the influence of the Royal African Company. What is IOTL the Midwest would likely become "Slave States", and slavery perhaps becomes entrenched in New York and New Jersey took. With the money and manpower of the Colonies, perhaps the George IV could make a play for Neo-Absolutism for a time in a sorta-replication of Caesar. Certainly the OTL 1833 Abolition Law would never come to pass, at least as we know it.

Napoleon is unable to sell off Louisiana, since there is no USA, or is Spain able to Buy it ? 
likely that British army is send into Louisiana and annex it for Empire, follow dispute with Spain about east frontier of new British territory. 
France lack 80 million french franc for warfare, is it realistic, that the French Empire is bankrupt after the fourth Coalition war? 

Force this Napoleon to diplomatic initiative, like with Neutral Prussia (this could prevent that Prussia become military Power in Europa)
also focus he on consolidation  of new Kingdoms and new "third" Germany founded out his German Allies as buffer states  against Prussia and Austria 
But in end Napoleon will be remove from Power, either a fifth Coalition war or french revolution do Napoleon despotic ruling. 
Depending how Britain with full support American colonies now is able to deal with France forces.

The Congress of Vienna could have different outcome.
also has British Empire to deal with new nations in America, forming out Spanish colonies. special Mexico who border now with British Colonies.  

The French Revolution as we know it wouldn't happen because the French Monarchy isn't as indebted as OTL due to the lack of the American intervention. It's exceedingly likely the revolutionary fervor as avoided as a minimum, so the most I could see is a turn to Constitutional Monarchy.

[stevep]

Aug 17, 2024 19:38:49 GMT ewellholmes said:

Aug 6, 2023 18:15:07 GMT michelvan said:

Now what if the American revolution fails in 1777 ?
(Thomas Fleming point out 13 events were the Americans battle had failed for Washington in book What If ?)

How would World History evolve if Britain rule over North America ?

One thing obvious is that British ignore Australia and New Zeeland for moment, and continue dump convicted in the 13 Colonies.

More interesting is what happen in Europe, special France do it role it play in failed American revolution.
i think that Revolution of 1789 will happen and Napoleon rise to power.
but the Coalition wars will be very different.

Slavery would become further entrenched in "American" society, given the influence of the Royal African Company. What is IOTL the Midwest would likely become "Slave States", and slavery perhaps becomes entrenched in New York and New Jersey took. With the money and manpower of the Colonies, perhaps the George IV could make a play for Neo-Absolutism for a time in a sorta-replication of Caesar. Certainly the OTL 1833 Abolition Law would never come to pass, at least as we know it.

Napoleon is unable to sell off Louisiana, since there is no USA, or is Spain able to Buy it ? 
likely that British army is send into Louisiana and annex it for Empire, follow dispute with Spain about east frontier of new British territory. 
France lack 80 million french franc for warfare, is it realistic, that the French Empire is bankrupt after the fourth Coalition war? 

Force this Napoleon to diplomatic initiative, like with Neutral Prussia (this could prevent that Prussia become military Power in Europa)
also focus he on consolidation  of new Kingdoms and new "third" Germany founded out his German Allies as buffer states  against Prussia and Austria 
But in end Napoleon will be remove from Power, either a fifth Coalition war or french revolution do Napoleon despotic ruling. 
Depending how Britain with full support American colonies now is able to deal with France forces.

The Congress of Vienna could have different outcome.
also has British Empire to deal with new nations in America, forming out Spanish colonies. special Mexico who border now with British Colonies.  

The French Revolution as we know it wouldn't happen because the French Monarchy isn't as indebted as OTL due to the lack of the American intervention. It's exceedingly likely the revolutionary fervor as avoided as a minimum, so the most I could see is a turn to Constitutional Monarchy.

a)  I don't know as Britain is inheriting the northern slave states - and general working white population's - hostility towards slaves as economic rival.  There will still be competition for lands and this could be worsened in the south if the British government respects the rights of the 5 civilized nations especially.  While numbers of their elites were slave holders themselves your going to have less land available for competition between ordinary white farmers and the great plantation owners.

  Also the move against slavery were already under way on a moral level in parts of Europe and that's unlikely to change.  You had the ruling banning slavery in England back in 1770 already in place.

b)  We don't know what happens with France,  If it avoids the OTL war debts its in a better economic position but its still got an extremely inefficient and corrupt fiscal system and society as a whole but without the immediate crisis, or with it only emerging say a decade or two later what happens in the way of reforms.  Can the clergy and aristocracy be persuaded to give up their stranglehold on the economy and exemptions from taxation?

  The other thing is that just because the Bourbon powers don't intervene in the civil war in the colonies - which is likely to be how its recorded in history - or if that's avoided totally what's the likelihood of another dynastic war a few years or at most 2-3 decades down the line.  In that case Louisiana will be swamped and possibly New Spain becoming independent with British support but quite possibly losing Tejas in the process.  That might prompt the same sort of crisis in France as 1789 did OTL.  Mind you if as is quite possible Poland has been partitioned by this time what dynastic alliances would be in place.  Austria and Prussia would still be rivals but which way would Russia go?  Also if Austria and Prussia aren't pre-occupied with the partitions or particularly at each others throats at that point they might be more active in supporting the monarchy in France.

  Similarly where would Britain be politically.  Early successes in George III's reign would strengthen the monarch's power and in the short term prestige but there would still be issues and pressure for reform which could see a coalition between reformers in both Britain and the colonies against their respective ruling elites.  Also in Britain at least your going to have the existing social and economic status quo challenged by the industrial revolution generating new centres of wealth.  Also without the Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars or with them delayed might some parts of the continent, most likely the Austrian Netherlands [Belgium] being more industrialized.

[ewellholmes]

Aug 18, 2024 15:30:08 GMT stevep said:

a)  I don't know as Britain is inheriting the northern slave states - and general working white population's - hostility towards slaves as economic rival.  There will still be competition for lands and this could be worsened in the south if the British government respects the rights of the 5 civilized nations especially.  While numbers of their elites were slave holders themselves your going to have less land available for competition between ordinary white farmers and the great plantation owners.

Most of those "Northern States" would be Slave states here, from the Midwest to New York and New Jersey. The only places to avoid Slavery would be Pennsylvania and New England, with the latter's turn against slavery as an institution being tied to the end of the Slave trade, given that most of that was conducted on their shipping; once the trade shut down legally, their ability to profit off it was removed.

  Also the move against slavery were already under way on a moral level in parts of Europe and that's unlikely to change.  You had the ruling banning slavery in England back in 1770 already in place.

In Europe, sure, but not in this ATL UK. The Anti-Slavery movement only achieved political influence once the American colonies broke away; until then, the Crown and a lot of the British merchant class profited off it to the extent they repeatedly rejected Colonial efforts to limit or suppress the importation of slave.

"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."

With the colonies still in America and the practice rapidly spreading into the Central Atlantic and OTL Midwest, this influence and economic necessity will grow, rather than shrink.

[

div]b)  We don't know what happens with France,  If it avoids the OTL war debts its in a better economic position but its still got an extremely inefficient and corrupt fiscal system and society as a whole but without the immediate crisis, or with it only emerging say a decade or two later what happens in the way of reforms.  Can the clergy and aristocracy be persuaded to give up their stranglehold on the economy and exemptions from taxation?

[/div][/quote]

We can definitely say France avoids the Revolution, however, given it's immediate catalysts have been averted:

"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 prestige of the Monarchy remains intact and the inflationary episode of the late 1780s is likewise avoided, since debt payments have not reached 65% of GDP. Problems persist, but it's worth noting even IOTL France was on track to reform, rather than revolution in 1789-1791 until the situation spiraled out of control. With more breathing room, the ability to gradually reform is there.

  The other thing is that just because the Bourbon powers don't intervene in the civil war in the colonies - which is likely to be how its recorded in history - or if that's avoided totally what's the likelihood of another dynastic war a few years or at most 2-3 decades down the line.  In that case Louisiana will be swamped and possibly New Spain becoming independent with British support but quite possibly losing Tejas in the process.  That might prompt the same sort of crisis in France as 1789 did OTL.  Mind you if as is quite possible Poland has been partitioned by this time what dynastic alliances would be in place.  Austria and Prussia would still be rivals but which way would Russia go?  Also if Austria and Prussia aren't pre-occupied with the partitions or particularly at each others throats at that point they might be more active in supporting the monarchy in France.

Louisiana doesn't exist here, it's just New Spain so I don't see how that would effect France.

  Similarly where would Britain be politically.  Early successes in George III's reign would strengthen the monarch's power and in the short term prestige but there would still be issues and pressure for reform which could see a coalition between reformers in both Britain and the colonies against their respective ruling elites.  Also in Britain at least your going to have the existing social and economic status quo challenged by the industrial revolution generating new centres of wealth.  Also without the Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars or with them delayed might some parts of the continent, most likely the Austrian Netherlands [Belgium] being more industrialized.

The Colonists were Pro-Monarchy instead of Pro-Parliament; most of the American leadership did not think of King George III as the problem until later on. It's likely in the aftermath the Monarchy can bind the Colonists too them, especially via the Crown's support of Slavery's interests. Much as Caesar used Gaul, I expect George III and IV to use the Colonies to their advantage, although I agree eventually this will lead to social issues. You probably end up with a situation where you have the inverse of OTL between France and the UK; the former evolves into a stable Constitutional Monarchy while the later has a Republican Revolution later on. I could see the Crown and large numbers of exiles fleeing to America after that.

[stevep]

  Yes there were strong vested interests in the slave trade and slavery but there was also growing opposition.  Because of the continued links here the pro-slavery factions will stay significant longer but there are forces still opposing it.  As you pointed out this included powerful elements in the colonies themselves and this could continue, especially with whatever post-revolutionary settlement occurs.  Even in George Washington's time, while he was a strong supporter of slavery he faced issues.

  The fact is that while there are growing moral concerns in the more religious regions of Britain and the colonies especially there were also strong economic and social interests in the colonies.

  In terms of the French revolution, with no involvement in the American unrest - but still having waged the 7YW - it won't occur in 1789.  However that doesn't rule out a later war for either France or Spain, with the Bourbon Compact likely bringing one to support the war against Britain. 

  In that case Louisiana is very likely to come under British/colonial rule which does have a big impact of the subject of the thread, as would say New Spain becoming an independent Mexican state because of the economic influences on the world.  However such a war is also likely to be very costly for the French government so the question would be whether the revolution would be avoided totally or just delayed.  As I pointed out a later French instability could be worse for the rebels than OTL.

  Britain might become more autocratic but both in the British Isles and the colonies there was strong support for reform, albeit along different lines in cases, along with powerful restraints on monarchical power inside Britain.  Also the colonists are likely to change their stance once they realise that the king was the main force driving for more control over them.  If the revolution is suppressed or turns the French monarchy into something more akin to the British one then your not going to have the same reactionary backlash as a result of the non-occurring violent revolution doesn't occur.

[ewellholmes]

Aug 19, 2024 20:37:55 GMT stevep said:

  Yes there were strong vested interests in the slave trade and slavery but there was also growing opposition.  Because of the continued links here the pro-slavery factions will stay significant longer but there are forces still opposing it.  As you pointed out this included powerful elements in the colonies themselves and this could continue, especially with whatever post-revolutionary settlement occurs.  Even in George Washington's time, while he was a strong supporter of slavery he faced issues.

British Anti-Slavery sentiments were tied into the economic vitality of the system. Once the American colonies were lost and the Caribbean plantations began unprofitable due to advances in sugar technology, only then did Abolitionism come into the fore as a serious movement; the first proposal to ban the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade wasn't even until 1792, for the record.

There was no powerful abolitionist force in the Colonies, only a desire to regulate the Slave Trade itself due to demographic concerns. Given the Crown overruled them every time, why are we to assume this stops, especially with the Cotton Boom soon to start with the cotton gin coming around in the 1790s?

  The fact is that while there are growing moral concerns in the more religious regions of Britain and the colonies especially there were also strong economic and social interests in the colonies.

The problem here being the Pro-Slave Bloc is far longer, more financially powerful and remains politically connected to the top of the British system. This is not the era of mass democracy.

  In terms of the French revolution, with no involvement in the American unrest - but still having waged the 7YW - it won't occur in 1789.  However that doesn't rule out a later war for either France or Spain, with the Bourbon Compact likely bringing one to support the war against Britain. 

Future wars are certainly possible, but that also means the other problems for France in this era won't be happening in tandem to cause the perfect storm that was IOTL; the inflationary wave hit at the same time as crop failures caused by the 1780s Icelandic eruptions. The debt burden will be lower and the food situation much better later on.

  In that case Louisiana is very likely to come under British/colonial rule which does have a big impact of the subject of the thread, as would say New Spain becoming an independent Mexican state because of the economic influences on the world.  However such a war is also likely to be very costly for the French government so the question would be whether the revolution would be avoided totally or just delayed.  As I pointed out a later French instability could be worse for the rebels than OTL.

Personally I think in the long run most of North America will be taken by the "British", with the center of the "British Empire" moving de facto to the Americas, as the "Americans" will have increasing sway and influence due to their larger population and wealth.

  Britain might become more autocratic but both in the British Isles and the colonies there was strong support for reform, albeit along different lines in cases, along with powerful restraints on monarchical power inside Britain.  Also the colonists are likely to change their stance once they realise that the king was the main force driving for more control over them.  If the revolution is suppressed or turns the French monarchy into something more akin to the British one then your not going to have the same reactionary backlash as a result of the non-occurring violent revolution doesn't occur.

I suspect the long run result is the inversion of OTL; Britain has a devastating revolution while France undergoes a gradual path of reform. The British Crown and large amounts of the population flee to America as a result.

[stevep]

Aug 22, 2024 21:12:10 GMT ewellholmes said:

Aug 19, 2024 20:37:55 GMT stevep said:

  Yes there were strong vested interests in the slave trade and slavery but there was also growing opposition.  Because of the continued links here the pro-slavery factions will stay significant longer but there are forces still opposing it.  As you pointed out this included powerful elements in the colonies themselves and this could continue, especially with whatever post-revolutionary settlement occurs.  Even in George Washington's time, while he was a strong supporter of slavery he faced issues.

British Anti-Slavery sentiments were tied into the economic vitality of the system. Once the American colonies were lost and the Caribbean plantations began unprofitable due to advances in sugar technology, only then did Abolitionism come into the fore as a serious movement; the first proposal to ban the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade wasn't even until 1792, for the record.

There was no powerful abolitionist force in the Colonies, only a desire to regulate the Slave Trade itself due to demographic concerns. Given the Crown overruled them every time, why are we to assume this stops, especially with the Cotton Boom soon to start with the cotton gin coming around in the 1790s?

  The fact is that while there are growing moral concerns in the more religious regions of Britain and the colonies especially there were also strong economic and social interests in the colonies.

The problem here being the Pro-Slave Bloc is far longer, more financially powerful and remains politically connected to the top of the British system. This is not the era of mass democracy.

  In terms of the French revolution, with no involvement in the American unrest - but still having waged the 7YW - it won't occur in 1789.  However that doesn't rule out a later war for either France or Spain, with the Bourbon Compact likely bringing one to support the war against Britain. 

Future wars are certainly possible, but that also means the other problems for France in this era won't be happening in tandem to cause the perfect storm that was IOTL; the inflationary wave hit at the same time as crop failures caused by the 1780s Icelandic eruptions. The debt burden will be lower and the food situation much better later on.

  In that case Louisiana is very likely to come under British/colonial rule which does have a big impact of the subject of the thread, as would say New Spain becoming an independent Mexican state because of the economic influences on the world.  However such a war is also likely to be very costly for the French government so the question would be whether the revolution would be avoided totally or just delayed.  As I pointed out a later French instability could be worse for the rebels than OTL.

Personally I think in the long run most of North America will be taken by the "British", with the center of the "British Empire" moving de facto to the Americas, as the "Americans" will have increasing sway and influence due to their larger population and wealth.

  Britain might become more autocratic but both in the British Isles and the colonies there was strong support for reform, albeit along different lines in cases, along with powerful restraints on monarchical power inside Britain.  Also the colonists are likely to change their stance once they realise that the king was the main force driving for more control over them.  If the revolution is suppressed or turns the French monarchy into something more akin to the British one then your not going to have the same reactionary backlash as a result of the non-occurring violent revolution doesn't occur.

I suspect the long run result is the inversion of OTL; Britain has a devastating revolution while France undergoes a gradual path of reform. The British Crown and large amounts of the population flee to America as a result.

  The pro-slavery links will be stronger but so will anti-slavery ones as, as you yourself admit many people saw large numbers of slaves as determent to their interests.  That the 1st push for a ban on the slave trade occurred at the start of a period of reactionary swell in Britain due to the revolutionary events in France - which as we both agree won't be happening at the same time here - shows there was pressure for reform.  Also without the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars of OTL and Napoleon's attempts to exclude British controlled goods there's far less incentive for the development of much improved sugar beet yields.

  The crown supported the interests of the slave trade but any settlement of the conflict in the colonies is going to see some concessions on both sides so its ability to impose its will without risk is likely to be reduced.  

  If later wars happen, especially with Britain boosted by the wealthy N American colonies - doubly so if their able to apply some direct taxes to partially fund the latter's defence - then French is likely to see very heavy expenditure.  Especially since with industrialization developing rapidly in Britain the latter is going to pull steadily ahead in economic capacity.  Sooner or later there's going to be a serious debt crisis given the malfunctioning governmental system in France and more pressure for reform.  It could fail, which would mean more repression and an even dire economic and fiscal situation in France. It could see modern political reform or as OTL it could go all the way to violent overthrow of the ancient regime as OTL.  However there will be an economic and political crisis at some stage, probably within a couple of decades of OTL.

  I don't think its very likely that an elite determined on repression will be driven from Britain and then find a secure home in N America.  Britain already has substantial ability to constrain the monarchy established for some centuries and especially from 1688 and 1714 and it will also have growing middle class elements who also seen a need for reform.  Violent revolution is still markedly more likely to occur in France which lacks any real restraint on the monarchy or the privileged elites of the clergy and aristocracy.

[ewellholmes]

Aug 22, 2024 22:00:49 GMT stevep said:

  The pro-slavery links will be stronger but so will anti-slavery ones as, as you yourself admit many people saw large numbers of slaves as determent to their interests. 

That's not what I said, however; they had no issue with slavery as an institution, the concern lay with allowing the slave population to become too large within their respective colonies. This later dissipated, as exemplified by the Deep South IOTL debating whether or not to restore the Slave Trade.

That the 1st push for a ban on the slave trade occurred at the start of a period of reactionary swell in Britain due to the revolutionary events in France - which as we both agree won't be happening at the same time here - shows there was pressure for reform.  Also without the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars of OTL and Napoleon's attempts to exclude British controlled goods there's far less incentive for the development of much improved sugar beet yields.

If by reform you mean ending the Slave trade itself rather than slavery and after the proponents of it-the Royal African Company-had been defanged by the loss of the United States, then sure. That same chain of events has obviously been derailed, however, and the RAC would be very influential and financially powerful here.

The sugar beets being less developed is a boon to the Slave-holding Caribbean plantations.

  The crown supported the interests of the slave trade but any settlement of the conflict in the colonies is going to see some concessions on both sides so its ability to impose its will without risk is likely to be reduced.  

Why and how? From IOTL 1780 to 1810, more African Slaves were imported to the United States as in the previous 160 years combined.

  If later wars happen, especially with Britain boosted by the wealthy N American colonies - doubly so if their able to apply some direct taxes to partially fund the latter's defence - then French is likely to see very heavy expenditure.  Especially since with industrialization developing rapidly in Britain the latter is going to pull steadily ahead in economic capacity.  Sooner or later there's going to be a serious debt crisis given the malfunctioning governmental system in France and more pressure for reform.  It could fail, which would mean more repression and an even dire economic and fiscal situation in France. It could see modern political reform or as OTL it could go all the way to violent overthrow of the ancient regime as OTL.  However there will be an economic and political crisis at some stage, probably within a couple of decades of OTL.

There's nothing preventing France from reforming as did all other Ancien Regimes in this era, it was just a confluence of issues that handicapped it at this time; a perfect storm, as I said.

  I don't think its very likely that an elite determined on repression will be driven from Britain and then find a secure home in N America.  Britain already has substantial ability to constrain the monarchy established for some centuries and especially from 1688 and 1714 and it will also have growing middle class elements who also seen a need for reform.  Violent revolution is still markedly more likely to occur in France which lacks any real restraint on the monarchy or the privileged elites of the clergy and aristocracy.

We've just established the British Monarchy has the American colonies to draw upon for wealth and manpower, giving it a decisive advantage in it's ability to push back on Parliament. So which way is it?