Culture of British America with no ARW?

I think this would change the fundamental nature of British colonialism, these "colonies" are going to see themselves as part of the core, and will want equal status.

I suspect the most likely way America stays British is representation at Westminster plus a fair degree of autonomy at the colony level (although colonial borders would likely be moved and merged as appropriate as was seen in CANZ. Ireland will almost certainly get the same status before long and likely Scotland too in time. I suspect that will likely lead to an English parliament being created to round things off. The natural tendency of decentralization is more powers to decentralized over time, so I suspect we would ultimately end up with the Empire being a structure somewhat like a merged NATO/EU.
 

N7Buck

Banned
Didn't the British ban colonization of the land west of the Appalachia and were the great lakes and Canada French speaking Catholics because IIRC Ontario only became anglicize because of the the British loyalist leaving the newly-independent US
There would be less impetus for settlement of Ontario by British colonists, as they could instead settle Ohio country.
Almost certainly. Its the Catholic migration that might be slowed down.
Irish Catholic migration would eventually pick up in the early 19th Century, however Continental Catholics migration is likely to slowed, Although I don't know what Britain's policy was on French migration to Quebec.
@Socrates
I am not so sure about Westminster representation, as it was very infeasible in the late 18th to mid 19th century. With the implementation of the Transatlantic telegraph, it would be very feasible, as that allows a fast line of communication, and the cost and speed of ships have improved.

I have thought about what the effect colonial decentralization would have on Britain, and it's hard to determine, as Britain wouldn't want to lose any population advantage it has over the colonies, however the social pressures of decentralization would be immense.

I tend to think the organization of this empire would be status quo, as imperial federation could be seen as infringing on autonomy, and giving up foreign/military policy to the imperial constituents could be seen as dissolving the empire. So a situation where Britain or England manages it's own internal affairs and the imperial/external affairs.
 
Last edited:
@Socrates
I am not so sure about Westminster representation, as it was very infeasible in the late 18th to mid 19th century. With the implementation of the Transatlantic telegraph, it would be very feasible, as that allows a fast line of communication, and the cost and speed of ships have improved.

Traveling by sea at this time was far more viable than traveling from California to DC by land a century later.
 

N7Buck

Banned
I think there could be a strong worker or union culture in the US, as it was widespread among English immigrants to the US otl, and with colonies always allowing for more freedom than the homeland (egalitarianism in Australia or religious minorities in the 13 colonies), perhaps that worker culture develops specifically in the colonies, while being hindered in Britain.
Which was certainly harder than traveling across the Atlantic in the 1770s.
What are the effects of the East and West coast being united by a land border, doesn't that change the dynamic of representation, in which the inefficiencies of it can be ignored. Whereas an ocean separating the metropole from the 13 colonies, will be seen differently. I could be wrong, but that is my thoughts.
 
I think there could be a strong worker or union culture in the US, as it was widespread among English immigrants to the US otl, and with colonies always allowing for more freedom than the homeland (egalitarianism in Australia or religious minorities in the 13 colonies), perhaps that worker culture develops specifically in the colonies, while being hindered in Britain.

What are the effects of the East and West coast being united by a land border, doesn't that change the dynamic of representation, in which the inefficiencies of it can be ignored. Whereas an ocean separating the metropole from the 13 colonies, will be seen differently. I could be wrong, but that is my thoughts.
There is no need for union culture as workers could just head West to get their own plots of land. That is the main reason it did not develop in the US.

As for an ocean separating from the metropole, that is why they would also have autonomy locally. But the advantages of being part of a huge imperial market are too much. Plus in just 50 years, sectional tension gets big between North and South, and neither side would want to piss off the British industrial power.
 
Top