Would the Thirteen Colonies have unified into a single political entity even if they still remained British?

[Reflection]

It's rather easy to forget that before independence, the Thirteen Colonies were very much acting independently and autonomously from each other, actually distrusted each other much of the time, and were very different from each other in terms of their cultures and values. They really were like thirteen different countries in many ways. While they were obviously connected with each other as part of the British Empire, and they did trade with each other as needed, they were not a single entity by any means. The American Revolution was in many ways a baptism of fire that unified these colonies into the United States of America.

But one thing I wonder is if, without the American Revolution, would these colonies unify into one entity while still remaining British? Would there be a point where all of these different colonies form some sort of union and have a local single governing body? Similar to how all the colonies in Australia unified into a single entity. For a fictional example, Harry Turtledove's book The Two Georges has this as its premise, where all the British colonies in America form into what is called the "North American Union".

Would we see something akin to a North American Union in a timeline without the American Revolution, and what do you think it would be like?

 

[Analytical Engine]

IMO, probably not

Canada was unified partially as a reaction to the United States. Maybe if there's some kind of superpower Mexico that poses a significant threat, but otherwise, I doubt they'd have more than an economic union

 

[Avrorrange]

Many of these colonies would have likely been amalgamated overtime. Individually, most of these colonies were just too small.The Dominion of New England and a Dominion of the Carolinas provides good template.

 

[Beatriz]

IMO, probably not

Canada was unified partially as a reaction to the United States. Maybe if there's some kind of superpower Mexico that poses a significant threat, but otherwise, I doubt they'd have more than an economic union

I read a paper once arguing that Mexico should have been the first American republic because they had more serious reasons to revolt; Mexico as a superpower (with African/Asian colonies and sphere of influence) a la Sobel seems semi plausible

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Many of these colonies would have likely been amalgamated overtime. Individually, most of these colonies were just too small.The Dominion of New England and the Dominion of the Carolinas provides good template.

The most united the Dominion of New England ever got was when they united to overthrow the royal governor so they could go back to being separate colonies. I suppose in time it's possible for a similar amalgamation to occur for the sake of organizing the Empire, but it'd have a better chance of sticking if the New Englanders decided to do it themselves. As it stands, the colonies remain individual states today and some have even shrunk since then.

 

[Avrorrange]

The most united the Dominion of New England ever got was when they united to overthrow the royal governor so they could go back to being separate colonies. I suppose in time it's possible for a similar amalgamation to occur for the sake of organizing the Empire, but it'd have a better chance of sticking if the New Englanders decided to do it themselves. As it stands, the colonies remain individual states today and some have even shrunk since then.

That the us exists waived away a lot of the need for amalgamation. The us itself is basically an amalgamation of colonies. It’s very difficult to coordinate all these tiny colonies without some kind of larger government at the local level.

 

[Aichi72]

That the us exists waived away a lot of the need for amalgamation. The us itself is basically an amalgamation of colonies. It’s very difficult to coordinate all these tiny colonies without some kind of larger government at the local level.

So maybe some dominions do form ITTL, but they're regional groupings that aren't really powerful. They're sole job would be co-ordinate inter-colonial activity and possibly liaison with the motherland.

 

[Avrorrange]

So maybe some dominions do form ITTL, but they're regional groupings that aren't really powerful. They're sole job would be co-ordinate inter-colonial activity and possibly liaison with the motherland.

That would be my thinking. Hence why I said Dominion of New England(consisting the Northern 13) and a Dominion of the Carolinas(encompassing Virginia to Florida). Possibly more dominions to form from the interior states such as Kentucky etc. At most just one dominion comprising the original 13(+Florida). The other territory across the Apalachee probably become a separate Dominion.

 

[Thoresby]

If all of North America had stayed British I think you would eventually have seen some larger intercolonial entities created, probably not called Dominions as that name had a bad reputation in New England but it wouldn't map onto either OTL or Turtledoves NAU. It makes far more sense for New Hampshire to be in a confederation with Nova Scotia then Georgia for example.

 

[Beatriz]

To what extent would similar federal structures be used elsewhere? The near-deleted Well Enough Alone has all of North America as a Kingdom in personal union and eventually india would be organized likewise

 

[Gokbay]

A North American Union is unlikely I think but federal New England (possibly including the Maritimes) and/or Mid-Atlantic does make sense.

 

[ramones1986]

Many of these colonies would have likely been amalgamated overtime. Individually, most of these colonies were just too small.The Dominion of New England and a Dominion of the Carolinas provides good template.

How about the Middle Colonies (e.g. New York and Pennsylvania)? And also Maryland?

 

[Avrorrange]

How about the Middle Colonies (e.g. New York and Pennsylvania)? And also Maryland?

New England would be the North(from Pennsylvania upwards) and Carolinas the South(Maryland to the Carolinas).

 

[Umbric Man]

I'm gonna buck up and say yes they could have: colonial unions were being proposed as early as 1697 by William Penn of all people (he wanted New York as capital) and such proposals continued sporadically to the Big One of the 1754 Albany Plan. We also saw Ben Franklin start to make some inroads to other weavers of unity like a vast postal network snaking outwards from Philadelphia. And finally, the colonies were seen as a grouping by outsiders, lumped together be it under the name of "Colonials" or "Americans" alike.

Even in OTL, repeated wars and figuring out trade between the colonies finally hammered down the need for the Americans to unite. Just because they would remain British in TTL doesn't change such squabbles and issues wouldn't keep arising and hence see the need to get together in some way.

 

[Aichi72]

I'm gonna buck up and say yes they could have: colonial unions were being proposed as early as 1697 by William Penn of all people (he wanted New York as capital) and such proposals continued sporadically to the Big One of the 1754 Albany Plan. We also saw Ben Franklin start to make some inroads to other weavers of unity like a vast postal network snaking outwards from Philadelphia. And finally, the colonies were seen as a grouping by outsiders, lumped together be it under the name of "Colonials" or "Americans" alike.

Even in OTL, repeated wars and figuring out trade between the colonies finally hammered down the need for the Americans to unite. Just because they would remain British in TTL doesn't change such squabbles and issues wouldn't keep arising and hence see the need to get together in some way.

Even if you had one large *dominion from Newfoundland to the West Indies and as westward as they can get, I suspect we would still see two *dominions in North America, as I have a hard time picturing Quebec being willing to join an even more Anglo-Protestant-dominated union than OTL.

 

[Umbric Man]

Even if you had one large *dominion from Newfoundland to the West Indies and as westward as they can get, I suspect we would still see two *dominions in North America, as I have a hard time picturing Quebec being willing to join an even more Anglo-Protestant-dominated union than OTL.

I can try to defend myself saying they meant the Thirteen themselves....

But, there was another unifying point to said Thirteen - they were all Anglo-founded (outside NY, which was at least in claimed English territory) settler colonies, the only mainland English colonies, and together existed as such for a good one hundred-fifty years before the British Empire annexed the future Northwest/Southwest Territories, emptied Floridas, and French-settled Canada, Cape Breton, and Acadia. Newfoundland was as much Royal Navy base and fishing yard as a colony and the West Indies were extraction plantations with strong ties to the British government. It would make sense to see the Thirteen and any western lands assigned or claimed by them to look to one another for unifying purposes as they became more built up and intertwined, give or take some extra pieces here and there like the Maritimes (emptied of Acadians and resettled by Yankees), the Floridas (Hispanic Floridians left in mass for Cuba and resettled by southerners that'd become Loyalist), or Ontario and English Canada westward (NY claimed Ontario as part of its western claims). Meanwhile, Quebec or Newfoundland can pull a New Zealand or Newfoundland-to-1949 and.... simply not join up, being too ethnically or geographically distant from "America" and "Americans" as TTL know them (Anglos/northern Euro-descendants/Blacks speaking English and practicing Protestantism starting on the eastern seaboard expanding westward).

In the same vein OTL Americans heading west looked to the USA itself to annex or protect them, I can see *British Empire Americans the same way to any Dominion of America, wherever the west ends for them in TTL.

 

[someone45356]

I read a paper once arguing that Mexico should have been the first American republic because they had more serious reasons to revolt; Mexico as a superpower (with African/Asian colonies and sphere of influence) a la Sobel seems semi plausible

I think some elaboration here would be nice. After all Mexico (New Spain) during this time period arguably did way better than it couldve thanks to the secession from Spain and all the conflicts it threw itself upon (many self-inflicted) as well as masonry being able to take hold not long after becoming a republic. Especially so if you mention actually revolting, since OTL mexico’s infighting was a lot less severe than for example in south america since the idea that Spain was too decadent both in ideologies (the liberal ideas) and as a whole (thanks to how it was pieced apart by france not long before) which had convinced a lot of the elite to unilaterally think of removing themselves from the empire. And while the subsequent Mexican Empire was actually not as badly handled in its ideals, it very much couldn’t deal with itself and fell apart and leading the whole place to relentless oblivion.

But as an example, New Spain in the early 19th century through its mines had some of the best salaries in the world, on par with both england and philadelphia, as well as potosi over at the viceroyalty of rio de la plata. And it was also during this time period that Spain went through with the first transcontinental vaccine program to New Spain. I think unity and cohession with itself and the rest of Spain could’ve made the place way more of a threat than it being by itself, because for example if the US ever threatened the texas territory like in otl. Fighting Spain doesn’t just mean fighting the new-spanish (mexicans) on land, but possibly navies coming from nearby cuba, puerto rico, central america, and maybe even the peninsula.

 

[oldfussnfeathers]

I'm gonna buck up and say yes they could have: colonial unions were being proposed as early as 1697 by William Penn of all people (he wanted New York as capital) and such proposals continued sporadically to the Big One of the 1754 Albany Plan. We also saw Ben Franklin start to make some inroads to other weavers of unity like a vast postal network snaking outwards from Philadelphia. And finally, the colonies were seen as a grouping by outsiders, lumped together be it under the name of "Colonials" or "Americans" alike.

Even in OTL, repeated wars and figuring out trade between the colonies finally hammered down the need for the Americans to unite. Just because they would remain British in TTL doesn't change such squabbles and issues wouldn't keep arising and hence see the need to get together in some way.

I can try to defend myself saying they meant the Thirteen themselves....

But, there was another unifying point to said Thirteen - they were all Anglo-founded (outside NY, which was at least in claimed English territory) settler colonies, the only mainland English colonies, and together existed as such for a good one hundred-fifty years before the British Empire annexed the future Northwest/Southwest Territories, emptied Floridas, and French-settled Canada, Cape Breton, and Acadia. Newfoundland was as much Royal Navy base and fishing yard as a colony and the West Indies were extraction plantations with strong ties to the British government. It would make sense to see the Thirteen and any western lands assigned or claimed by them to look to one another for unifying purposes as they became more built up and intertwined, give or take some extra pieces here and there like the Maritimes (emptied of Acadians and resettled by Yankees), the Floridas (Hispanic Floridians left in mass for Cuba and resettled by southerners that'd become Loyalist), or Ontario and English Canada westward (NY claimed Ontario as part of its western claims). Meanwhile, Quebec or Newfoundland can pull a New Zealand or Newfoundland-to-1949 and.... simply not join up, being too ethnically or geographically distant from "America" and "Americans" as TTL know them (Anglos/northern Euro-descendants/Blacks speaking English and practicing Protestantism starting on the eastern seaboard expanding westward).

In the same vein OTL Americans heading west looked to the USA itself to annex or protect them, I can see *British Empire Americans the same way to any Dominion of America, wherever the west ends for them in TTL.

This United Dominion of America would have to have 1 governor. That would make it hard to administer all the colonial legislatures, so maybe the colonies all vote on one Colonial Congress that has different enumerated powers from the smaller legislatures. Of course, if we were to have all the colonies operating under one government and one legal system, there would need to be a Superior Court to resolve disputes of the highest order. Then there’s the whole mess of finance and the different currencies and debtloads of each colony. Maybe some London bank can start a Colonial Charter right in the colonies. It would have to be in some central location to aid in hasty transactions, maybe Baltimore or Annapolis?

 

[Fabius Maximus]

But one thing I wonder is if, without the American Revolution, would these colonies unify into one entity while still remaining British? Would there be a point where all of these different colonies form some sort of union and have a local single governing body? Similar to how all the colonies in Australia unified into a single entity. For a fictional example, Harry Turtledove's book The Two Georges has this as its premise, where all the British colonies in America form into what is called the "North American Union".

I'm going to say they wouldn't. A united North American colony would inevitably become bigger, wealthier, and more populous than the UK, which would be very bad for imperial cohesion. You might see a bit of consolidation, Dominion of New England style, but I don't think the government in London would want the creation of a colonial superstate able to boss the rest of the empire around.

 

[oldfussnfeathers]

I think some elaboration here would be nice. After all Mexico (New Spain) during this time period arguably did way better than it couldve thanks to the secession from Spain and all the conflicts it threw itself upon (many self-inflicted) as well as masonry being able to take hold not long after becoming a republic. Especially so if you mention actually revolting, since OTL mexico’s infighting was a lot less severe than for example in south america since the idea that Spain was too decadent both in ideologies (the liberal ideas) and as a whole (thanks to how it was pieced apart by france not long before) which had convinced a lot of the elite to unilaterally think of removing themselves from the empire. And while the subsequent Mexican Empire was actually not as badly handled in its ideals, it very much couldn’t deal with itself and fell apart and leading the whole place to relentless oblivion.

But as an example, New Spain in the early 19th century through its mines had some of the best salaries in the world, on par with both england and philadelphia, as well as potosi over at the viceroyalty of rio de la plata. And it was also during this time period that Spain went through with the first transcontinental vaccine program to New Spain. I think unity and cohession with itself and the rest of Spain could’ve made the place way more of a threat than it being by itself, because for example if the US ever threatened the texas territory like in otl. Fighting Spain doesn’t just mean fighting the new-spanish (mexicans) on land, but possibly navies coming from nearby cuba, puerto rico, central america, and maybe even the peninsula.

That would be an interesting POD. I’m not sure how Spain was doing in the 1840s (generally bad things IIRC) but presumably the ability to bring up colonial troops from further south would at a minimum be helpful. The Veracruz landing of Scott may also be more contested or impossible. I don’t think that changes the calculus of defending Santa Fe and California - remote posts at the fringes of the empire with marginal known value. Presumably this war sees a slugging match between Taylor and the Spanish in northern Mexico that ends with roughly the same annexations.

I think the POD to the Texan Revolution could result in an earlier Mexican-American War. That ends a lot worse for the Americans if Tyler doesn’t play ball. That might ruin the whole Vice President succession plan with alt-13th Amendment. Also a second American defeat or status quo antebellum might teach us that war is not a solution, especially the Southern section. That might forestall a violent or cohesive ACW.