United states of England

[SolomonW]

About 1900, many people started to realise that the twentieth century was
going to be dominated by powers that had the resources of continents such
as the USA and what was frightening to Germany, Russia. One country that
people realized might be able to get such resources was Britain and there
was some discussion about it.

However, for such an expanded Britain it was too late. Its white colonies
had already moved away.

Now what if Britain decided to integrate her white areas earlier say in
1850.

At that stage, both Canadians and Australians were willing to join up
directly to Britain. Most considered themselves to be British. I suspect it
would be done by states. Canada would give about nine states; Australia
six, New Zealsnd one or two and South Africa would be a long-term problem
with the blacks and Boers, but something could be done for the white
English. Scotland, Ireland and Wales would give about one each and so on.
Each would send a representatives to London.

Britain now goes into the twentieth century with raw resources greater than
the US or Russia and a population about a third of the USA.

Note if India joins in this United States, the figures change dramatically
but I doubt the English would do this.

[Don P]

. . . what if Britain decided to integrate her white areas earlier say in
1850.
At that stage, both Canadians and Australians were willing to join up
directly to Britain. Most considered themselves to be British. I suspect it
would be done by states. Canada would give about nine states; Australia
six, New Zealsnd one or two and South Africa would be a long-term problem
with the blacks and Boers, but something could be done for the white
English. Scotland, Ireland and Wales would give about one each and so on.
Each would send a representatives to London.
Britain now goes into the twentieth century with raw resources greater than
the US or Russia and a population about a third of the USA.

Several books narrate the history of "imperial federation" as promoted
from 1897 by Joseph Chamberlain and as late as the 1930s by Lord
Beaverbrook. It never worked because (1) nearly every concrete plan was
interpreted by the dominions as a plot to increase British economic
control overseas and (2) domestic politics in the UK (e.g. the
franchise) usually trumped imperial topics: most voters saw no cultural
or economic interest in the overseas empire.

[SolomonW]

Post by Don P

. . . what if Britain decided to integrate her white areas earlier say in
1850.
At that stage, both Canadians and Australians were willing to join up
directly to Britain. Most considered themselves to be British. I suspect it
would be done by states. Canada would give about nine states; Australia
six, New Zealsnd one or two and South Africa would be a long-term problem
with the blacks and Boers, but something could be done for the white
English. Scotland, Ireland and Wales would give about one each and so on.
Each would send a representatives to London.
Britain now goes into the twentieth century with raw resources greater than
the US or Russia and a population about a third of the USA.

Several books narrate the history of "imperial federation" as promoted
from 1897 by Joseph Chamberlain and as late as the 1930s by Lord
Beaverbrook. It never worked because (1) nearly every concrete plan was
interpreted by the dominions as a plot to increase British economic
control overseas and (2) domestic politics in the UK (e.g. the
franchise) usually trumped imperial topics: most voters saw no cultural
or economic interest in the overseas empire.

The British voters in 1850s were very different to those in 1930s with
unlike interests. Plus the world changed so making any potential
commitments much more dangerous, e.g. Canada vs USA or Germany and later
Japan vs Australia/NZ


The locals in power in the British colonies were in altitude very alike to
the British in economic thought in the mid 1800s with similar interests.
Most of the raw material went straight to the UK. This became less true as
time went on.

Also by 1900, local conditions became more important. The conservatives in
Australia saw unification as a chance to deal the Labor movement a major
blow, that is why the Labor groups opposed it. They were both right, and it
did deal labor a major blow. Plus once unified they looked to build up
their own economy and if be it at UK so be it.

What all the locals were worried about their defense. From their point of
view, a local unification would partly work, but they would still require
UK support. So they moved towards a British Commonwealth.

So I suggest if unification was going to happen, it would need to happen
about 1850. I am not sure about Canada but in Australia and New Zealand, it
would not be a problem if the UK wanted it.

[Don P]

Post by SolomonW
The British voters in 1850s were very different to those in 1930s with
unlike interests.

We need to keep in mind the practical differences among "British
voters." In the 1850s (after the 1832 Reform Act, before the 1867
Franchise Act) voters were limited to the top 15 per cent of the male
population. In 1930 all men and women over 21 had the vote. I.e. just
when the overseas dominions were evolving "responsible government"
(local democracy) so too was the mother country, as it faced down the
Chartists and gradually increased the franchise. Both topics reached
their crisis in Edward VII's reign, when British politics were
preoccupied with Irish self- government and votes for women (and the
House of Lords' traditional right of veto.) Australians and Canadians
were not similarly preoccupied 1900-1914.

Another practical difference coloringg political organization (he
practicality of imperial federation) is communications. In the 1850s it
took four to six weeks for written orders or advice to cross the
Atlantic on a sailing ship. From the 1870s a reliable telegraph cable
linked North America and England.

[SolomonW]

Post by Don P
Another practical difference coloringg political organization (he
practicality of imperial federation) is communications. In the 1850s it
took four to six weeks for written orders or advice to cross the
Atlantic on a sailing ship. From the 1870s a reliable telegraph cable
linked North America and England.

That is why I suggested a United States of England, much would be done by
the state governments, which, is what happened during this period under
colonial rule.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW
What all the locals were worried about their defense. From their point of
view, a local unification would partly work, but they would still require
UK support. So they moved towards a British Commonwealth.
So I suggest if unification was going to happen, it would need to happen
about 1850. I am not sure about Canada but in Australia and New Zealand, it
would not be a problem if the UK wanted it.

How would the British commitment to defend the Empire - particularly
the White Dominions - be different in this scenario to OTL?

Given India in 1857-58 there can not have been any doubt Britain's
interests in defending pretty much any portion of the Empire.

Short of a successful cross-Channel invasion (!) I cannot imagine that
commitment changing at pretty much any time from 1837 (e.g. Victoria)
onwards.

Unless you're thinking of a War of 1812 American fantasy scenario I
can't envision that before 1837 either.

[SolomonW]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by SolomonW
What all the locals were worried about their defense. From their point of
view, a local unification would partly work, but they would still require
UK support. So they moved towards a British Commonwealth.
So I suggest if unification was going to happen, it would need to happen
about 1850. I am not sure about Canada but in Australia and New Zealand, it
would not be a problem if the UK wanted it.

How would the British commitment to defend the Empire - particularly
the White Dominions - be different in this scenario to OTL?

I agree but what is the issue here, is there an issue here?

[Don P]

Post by SolomonW
. . .

Post by The Horny Goat
How would the British commitment to defend the Empire - particularly
the White Dominions - be different in this scenario to OTL?

I agree but what is the issue here, is there an issue here?

The question first asked was: "what if Britain decided to integrate her
white areas earlier say in 1850"?

[Rhino]

Post by SolomonW
About 1900, many people started to realise that the twentieth century was
going to be dominated by powers that had the resources of continents such
as the USA and what was frightening to Germany, Russia. One country that
people realized might be able to get such resources was Britain and there
was some discussion about it.
However, for such an expanded Britain it was too late. Its white colonies
had already moved away.
Now what if Britain decided to integrate her white areas earlier say in
1850.
At that stage, both Canadians and Australians were willing to join up
directly to Britain. Most considered themselves to be British. I suspect it
would be done by states. Canada would give about nine states; Australia
six, New Zealsnd one or two and South Africa would be a long-term problem
with the blacks and Boers, but something could be done for the white
English. Scotland, Ireland and Wales would give about one each and so on.
Each would send a representatives to London.
Britain now goes into the twentieth century with raw resources greater than
the US or Russia and a population about a third of the USA.
Note if India joins in this United States, the figures change dramatically
but I doubt the English would do this.

I doubt such an enterprise would be called the United States of England;
more likely something like Greater Britain ;-)

That's an interesting idea, having the colonies become integral
(overseas) components of Britain. A variant on that would be to have
used the same strategy when the Americans started to clamour for
independence in the 1770s. Of course Canada was far less mature then and
consisted pretty much only of Quebec and today's maritime provinces
(excluding Newfoundland). Australia would just have begun being settled
by the first convicts then and New Zealand was similarly just getting
started. But let's say the British established as a policy in the 1770s
that as their colonies got to a certain size or wealth or population,
they would become integral parts of Britain and elect parliamentarians
at Westminster; the American colonies would join first while the
Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, etc. would join as they matured.

That would certainly change things at Westminster! It might even have to
become a multilingual chamber to accomodate French-speaking
parliamentarians from Quebec - and maybe Afrikaans-speakers (or
Xhosa-speakers!) from South Africa. The great debates that concerned
Britain in the 19th century, like the Corn Laws, slavery, etc. etc.
would presumably be approached a bit differently and the horse-trading
needed to bring about change would take on a different flavour. Colonial
representatives, like those in the former American colonies, might
resist the ending of slavery in Greater Britain or oppose measures that
hurt the interests of their farmers or industries.

Would women's suffrage come about earlier or later than OTL? Would
slavery be abolished earlier or later? Would universal (male) suffrage
occur earlier or later? Etc.

How would various wars play out? Would colonials keep Britain from even
participating in wars that they joined in the OTL? How quickly would
North America be settled if it were all part of Britain rather that what
happened in the OTL?

What would have happened in the Third World if the Third World countries
had continued to be an integral part of Britain rather than colonies
without representation at Westminster? Would they have stayed part of
Britain? Or would they still eventually demand independence?

How would our world look today if all the former colonies, including
India, were still integral parts of Britain, all acknowledging the same
monarch and all still electing representatives to Westminster? If India
had the same population as it does today - plus Pakistan and Bangladesh
because the Indian Partition might not have happened if India hadn't
gotten independence - it would dominate Parliament, assuming
representation by population was practiced.

What would Britain look like today if everyone in India, South Africa,
Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand and various third world countries
all had full citizenship in Britain and could presumably live wherever
they wanted. I imagine London would be much bigger than it is today and
would be, by far, the most important city in the world as a financial
and political capital. I also expect it would be even more ethnically
diverse than it is now.

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:29:02 -0400, Rhino

Post by SolomonW
Now what if Britain decided to integrate her white areas earlier say in
1850.
At that stage, both Canadians and Australians were willing to join up
directly to Britain. Most considered themselves to be British. I suspect it
would be done by states. Canada would give about nine states; Australia
six, New Zealsnd one or two and South Africa would be a long-term problem
with the blacks and Boers, but something could be done for the white
English. Scotland, Ireland and Wales would give about one each and so on.
Each would send a representatives to London.

On a more modest scale was there any scenario where France could have
been driven COMPLETELY out of North America before the 20th century?

France fishes the Grand Banks from St Pierre to this day and fished
the entire west coast of Newfoundland until 1914.

I would guess it would have been easy for Britain to take St Pierre in
1814 or at the treaty table in Vienna. A couple of frigates' worth of
Royal Marines would probably do the trick possibly without even firing
a shot.

I cannot imagine that herring was a central interest of French
diplomacy in the 19th/20th centuries.

[SolomonW]

Post by Rhino
What would Britain look like today if everyone in India, South Africa,
Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand and various third world countries
all had full citizenship in Britain and could presumably live wherever
they wanted.

It would be dominated by India.

[Pete Barrett]

Post by SolomonW

Post by Rhino
What would Britain look like today if everyone in India, South Africa,
Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand and various third world
countries all had full citizenship in Britain and could presumably live
wherever they wanted.

It would be dominated by India.

And UKIP would be formed to demand the UK's exit from 'Greater Britain'.
In fact, we might have had a referendum on the subject, and have the
government of the UK currently making a hash of the UK's withdrawal!

[SolomonW]

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by SolomonW

Post by Rhino
What would Britain look like today if everyone in India, South Africa,
Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand and various third world
countries all had full citizenship in Britain and could presumably live
wherever they wanted.

It would be dominated by India.

And UKIP would be formed to demand the UK's exit from 'Greater Britain'.
In fact, we might have had a referendum on the subject, and have the
government of the UK currently making a hash of the UK's withdrawal!

I am sure that the British voter would be very reluctant to expand the
voting to non-white areas.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW

Post by Pete Barrett
And UKIP would be formed to demand the UK's exit from 'Greater Britain'.
In fact, we might have had a referendum on the subject, and have the
government of the UK currently making a hash of the UK's withdrawal!

I am sure that the British voter would be very reluctant to expand the
voting to non-white areas.

In South Africa they weren't too wild about the Afrikaaners either but
there were too many to ignore.

[SolomonW]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by SolomonW

Post by Pete Barrett
And UKIP would be formed to demand the UK's exit from 'Greater Britain'.
In fact, we might have had a referendum on the subject, and have the
government of the UK currently making a hash of the UK's withdrawal!

I am sure that the British voter would be very reluctant to expand the
voting to non-white areas.

In South Africa they weren't too wild about the Afrikaaners either but
there were too many to ignore.

They were willing to give them a separate state till diamonds were found on
it.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat
In South Africa they weren't too wild about the Afrikaaners either but
there were too many to ignore.

They were willing to give them a separate state till diamonds were found on
it.

True - which is why Cecil Rhodes is one of the truly ambivalent
figures in modern history.

On the one hand his business practices are some of the most horrible
ever, on the other hand his scholarship program has enriched several
nations.

They did of course say similar things about Alfred Nobel (to a lesser
extent) in his lifetime.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat
In South Africa they weren't too wild about the
Afrikaaners either but there were too many to
ignore.

They were willing to give them a separate state till
diamonds were found on it.

1) There were _two_ Boer republics: Transvaal and
Orange Free State.

2) Britain tried to take over the Boer republics in
1880-1881, stopping only after the humiliating defeat
at Majuba.

3) Diamonds were not found in either Boer republic;
the diamond mines are at Kimberley, which is on the
border of Orange Free State and claimed by the OSF
when the diamonds were discovered. However, the
area was awarded instead to the local Griqua people
(a mixed-blood group) and then became part of Cape Colony.

4) What caused the final conflict between the British
and the Boer republics was the development of _gold_
mines in the Witwatersrand area. The Transvaal
government imposed a lot of offensive taxes and laws
on the miners, who were _uitlanders_ (foreigners), and
denied them citizenship and voting rights. Britain
demanded voting rights for uitlanders. The Boer
republics issued an ultimatum and then declared war.

[SolomonW]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat
In South Africa they weren't too wild about the
Afrikaaners either but there were too many to
ignore.

They were willing to give them a separate state till
diamonds were found on it.

1) There were _two_ Boer republics: Transvaal and
Orange Free State.
2) Britain tried to take over the Boer republics in
1880-1881, stopping only after the humiliating defeat
at Majuba.
3) Diamonds were not found in either Boer republic;
the diamond mines are at Kimberley, which is on the
border of Orange Free State and claimed by the OSF
when the diamonds were discovered. However, the
area was awarded instead to the local Griqua people
(a mixed-blood group) and then became part of Cape Colony.
4) What caused the final conflict between the British
and the Boer republics was the development of _gold_
mines in the Witwatersrand area. The Transvaal
government imposed a lot of offensive taxes and laws
on the miners, who were _uitlanders_ (foreigners), and
denied them citizenship and voting rights. Britain
demanded voting rights for uitlanders. The Boer
republics issued an ultimatum and then declared war.

Yep you are right it was not diamonds but gold.

[Pete Barrett]

4) What caused the final conflict between the British and the Boer
republics was the development of _gold_ mines in the Witwatersrand area.
The Transvaal government imposed a lot of offensive taxes and laws on
the miners, who were _uitlanders_ (foreigners), and denied them
citizenship and voting rights. Britain demanded voting rights for
uitlanders. The Boer republics issued an ultimatum and then declared
war.

In fairness to the Boers, the British were indulging in a massive amount
of provocation as well, and something like the Jameson Raid was much less
excusable than putting taxes on foreigners and denying them voting rights.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by SolomonW
It would be dominated by India.

Some years back, I saw an SF story set in a
future world federation, where Hindu voters
were a majority and had enacted a global
prohibition on beef. The protagonist, IIRC,
was either a "steaklegger" or had dealings
with one.

[Robert Woodward]

In article

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by SolomonW
It would be dominated by India.

Some years back, I saw an SF story set in a
future world federation, where Hindu voters
were a majority and had enacted a global
prohibition on beef. The protagonist, IIRC,
was either a "steaklegger" or had dealings
with one.

Could this be an early L. Sprague de Camp story ... checking ... "The
Contraband Cow"? However, I see from the ISFDB that, besides its
original appearance in _Astounding SF - July 1942 issue, it has only
appeared in the collection _The Wheels of If and Other Science Fiction

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Robert Woodward
Could this be an early L. Sprague de Camp story ...
checking ... "The Contraband Cow"? However, I see
from the ISFDB that, besides its original appearance
in _Astounding SF - July 1942 issue, it has only
appeared in the collection _The Wheels of If and
Other Science Fiction_

That's it. (IIRC - I'm living away from my SF book
collection, which includes all of de Camp.)

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW
Now what if Britain decided to integrate her white areas earlier say in
1850.
At that stage, both Canadians and Australians were willing to join up
directly to Britain. Most considered themselves to be British. I suspect it
would be done by states. Canada would give about nine states; Australia
six, New Zealsnd one or two and South Africa would be a long-term problem
with the blacks and Boers, but something could be done for the white
English. Scotland, Ireland and Wales would give about one each and so on.
Each would send a representatives to London.

By 1865 Britain was not willing to risk war with America to retain
Canada.

1850 is one reasonable POD. I would argue 1855 is a better POD. Here's
why:

1850 means pre-Crimean War and if there is no Crimean War involving
the UK then Britain stands a very good chance of also acquiring
Alaska.

On the other hand it may not be for sale if Russia has not first been
defeated. Russia was far from bankrupt in 1850.

The main reason why I think OTL's Crimean War peace makes British
acquisition of Alaska most unlikely is that the peace had several
naval restrictions that Russia found distasteful - and while France
and the Ottomans were also involved in the peace no one doubted that
Britain was the #1 naval power of the three and therefore the party
most interested in retaining the terms the Russians disliked.

About the only overture Britain could have made after the Crimean war
was the cancellation of these treaty clauses which I don't see Britain
going for without major ASBs in play.

[As for the Dominions considering themselves British Sir John A
Macdonald's most memorable slogan from the 1991 Canadian election
campaign was "A British subject I was born, a British subject I shall
die" - and by the end of 1891 he had thus bringing about an
interregnum where there were a total of 4 Prime Ministers in 5 years
before Macdonald's Conservatives got hammered at the polls for only
the second time since 1867.]

I would argue that a London-controlled Canada which included Alaska
would be even more formidable than OTL's.

On the other hand I would argue that the United States could have
militarily defeated Canada with or without British troops pretty much
any time from 1860 forward though both sides knew the cost of doing so
would be extreme.

Certainly pre-Appotmatox Southern interests would not have welcomed
4-5 more anti-slave states but as soon as the South is subdued, Canada
becomes an attractive target to Washington again and it was only the
cost of an annexationist war that prevented that.

Equally certainly OTL's settlement didn't present any difficulties to
any American who wished to own land in Canada - Alexander Graham Bell
and FDR are two prominent US citizens who did. It wasn't just
Americans either - the Duke of Windsor owned several thousand acres of
prime cattle ranch land in Alberta for decades.

[SolomonW]

Post by The Horny Goat
I would argue that a London-controlled Canada which included Alaska
would be even more formidable than OTL's.

Why it took a long time for the US to get Alaska economically and
populated; it is going to take Canada longer?

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat
I would argue that a London-controlled Canada which included Alaska
would be even more formidable than OTL's.

Why it took a long time for the US to get Alaska economically and
populated; it is going to take Canada longer?

Alaska had very little population even in the early post WW2 era.

However I assume you know that Klondike refers to a gold rush (1897)
not a solitaire card game.

[SolomonW]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat
I would argue that a London-controlled Canada which included Alaska
would be even more formidable than OTL's.

Why it took a long time for the US to get Alaska economically and
populated; it is going to take Canada longer?

Alaska had very little population even in the early post WW2 era.

I knew that, if Canada had this it would have less.

Post by The Horny Goat
However I assume you know that Klondike refers to a gold rush (1897)
not a solitaire card game.

No

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by The Horny Goat
By 1865 Britain was not willing to risk war with
America to retain Canada.

It's hard to imagine the US trying to seize Canada
by force in 1865. (Unless Britain had intervened
in the Civil War. Of course the potential US threat
to Canada factored into Britain's thinking about
that; it would perhaps be more accurate to state
that Britain was not willing to risk the loss of
Canada to make war on the US.)

However - suppose no Civil War, and some level of
mad nationalist passion in the US, causing the US
to invade Canada.

But this seems profoundly unlikely. The US in 1846 did
not just invade Mexico; President Polk went to
considerable trouble to gin up a Mexican provocation.
I don't see Canada or British authorities in Canada
falling into the same sort of trap.

And of course the US did not annex all Mexico, only
the minimally inhabited area of the Mexican Cession,
plus Texas, which had broken away from Mexico years
before.

For the US even to consider seriously acquiring
Canada by force would require substantially
different preconditions in both the US and Canada.

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 20 May 2018 13:32:19 -0500, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by The Horny Goat
By 1865 Britain was not willing to risk war with
America to retain Canada.

It's hard to imagine the US trying to seize Canada
by force in 1865. (Unless Britain had intervened
in the Civil War. Of course the potential US threat
to Canada factored into Britain's thinking about
that; it would perhaps be more accurate to state
that Britain was not willing to risk the loss of
Canada to make war on the US.)
However - suppose no Civil War, and some level of
mad nationalist passion in the US, causing the US
to invade Canada.
But this seems profoundly unlikely. The US in 1846 did
not just invade Mexico; President Polk went to
considerable trouble to gin up a Mexican provocation.
I don't see Canada or British authorities in Canada
falling into the same sort of trap.
And of course the US did not annex all Mexico, only
the minimally inhabited area of the Mexican Cession,
plus Texas, which had broken away from Mexico years
before.
For the US even to consider seriously acquiring
Canada by force would require substantially
different preconditions in both the US and Canada.

I don't see a South that had not been first crushed by the North
accepting new states made up of Abolitionist ex-Canadians. That's why
I am skeptical about US acquisition of Canada pre-Civil War.

In response to a failed British declaration for the Confederacy yes I
can see that. However it goes without saying that the Union blockade
of the Confederacy ends once the Royal Navy is involved surely?

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by The Horny Goat
However it goes without saying that the Union blockade
of the Confederacy ends once the Royal Navy is involved surely?

Of course. Union coastal operations, including
blockading, required projection of force up to
4,000 km away, over a very vulnerable LoC. The
Union got away with it because the Confederacy
had close to zero naval power. The RN could
easily deploy enough naval power to disrupt
Union operations, especially support from East
Coast ports to South Carolina and points
beyond. (I would say the Union had a fighting
chance of controlling the Chesapeake and the
North Carolina sounds.)

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 21 May 2018 01:58:46 -0500, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by The Horny Goat
However it goes without saying that the Union blockade
of the Confederacy ends once the Royal Navy is involved surely?

Of course. Union coastal operations, including
blockading, required projection of force up to
4,000 km away, over a very vulnerable LoC. The
Union got away with it because the Confederacy
had close to zero naval power. The RN could
easily deploy enough naval power to disrupt
Union operations, especially support from East
Coast ports to South Carolina and points
beyond. (I would say the Union had a fighting
chance of controlling the Chesapeake and the
North Carolina sounds.)

Seems reasonable - no chance at all in the Gulf of Mexico though which
probably puts Union forces in Louisiana at risk though after 1863 they
could retreat northwards.

[Pete Barrett]

Post by SolomonW
Now what if Britain decided to integrate her white areas earlier say in
1850.

There's the practicality of communications to consider. The first
transatlantic telegraph cable wasn't operative until 1865 (they'd been
trying to lay one since the late 1850s, but hadn't been able to make it
work), between the UK and the US. Politics may make them start trying as
early as 1852, but they'll still have to overcome the technical problems
(https://www.theiet.org/resources/library/archives/featured/trans-
cable1865.cfm).

The position with regard to Australia and New Zealand would be even more
severe, of course, though in that case political considerations could
bring forward the connection of Australia to the imperial telegraph
system, and of New Zealand to Australia, by some years.

If we're talking about moving people (newly elected MPs, for instance)
across the Atlantic, then it took about 12 days in 1850, reducing to half
that by the early 20th century (https://transportgeography.org/?
page_id=2135). General elections in the UK took quite a long time in the
19th century (as against modern elections, where the whole UK votes on
the same day), so that may not be as bad as it looks. And 19th century
governments weren't expected to resign as soon as they lost an election,
only when they lost a vote in the Commons (party discipline at the time
being much laxer than it is now), so it may not be unreasonable to expect
it to take several weeks for Parliament to assemble after an election.

However, what about Australia? According to http://www.anmm.gov.au/Learn/
Library-and-Research/Research-Guides/Passenger-Ships-to-Australia-A-
Comparison-of-Vessels-and-Journey-Time, we're talking 50 to 100 days in
the latter half of the 19th century for a one-way trip. Given that the
writs would have to go out, and the MPs come back, we'd be talking about
at least 20 weeks between calling the election and the new parliament
assembling (allowing for a 6 week election campaign). Is that much time
reasonable?

Once there's a telegraph in place, then that can be about halved, if the
writs are sent out by telegraph, and MPs are not necessarily expected to
return to their Australian constituencies to campaign (only newly elected
MPs would have to travel), but even 15 weeks seems excessive. And what
happens in the case of a disputed election (of which there were plenty in
the 19th century), where a commission has to be sent to the constituency?

All in all, I think the logistics may make this impossible as early as
you're thinking. By the early 20th century, with telegraphs in place, and
faster steam ships, it may be practical.

[SolomonW]

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by SolomonW
Now what if Britain decided to integrate her white areas earlier say in
1850.

There's the practicality of communications to consider. The first
transatlantic telegraph cable wasn't operative until 1865 (they'd been
trying to lay one since the late 1850s, but hadn't been able to make it
work), between the UK and the US. Politics may make them start trying as
early as 1852, but they'll still have to overcome the technical problems
(https://www.theiet.org/resources/library/archives/featured/trans-
cable1865.cfm).
The position with regard to Australia and New Zealand would be even more
severe, of course, though in that case political considerations could
bring forward the connection of Australia to the imperial telegraph
system, and of New Zealand to Australia, by some years.
If we're talking about moving people (newly elected MPs, for instance)
across the Atlantic, then it took about 12 days in 1850, reducing to half
that by the early 20th century (https://transportgeography.org/?
page_id=2135). General elections in the UK took quite a long time in the
19th century (as against modern elections, where the whole UK votes on
the same day), so that may not be as bad as it looks. And 19th century
governments weren't expected to resign as soon as they lost an election,
only when they lost a vote in the Commons (party discipline at the time
being much laxer than it is now), so it may not be unreasonable to expect
it to take several weeks for Parliament to assemble after an election.
However, what about Australia? According to http://www.anmm.gov.au/Learn/
Library-and-Research/Research-Guides/Passenger-Ships-to-Australia-A-
Comparison-of-Vessels-and-Journey-Time, we're talking 50 to 100 days in
the latter half of the 19th century for a one-way trip. Given that the
writs would have to go out, and the MPs come back, we'd be talking about
at least 20 weeks between calling the election and the new parliament
assembling (allowing for a 6 week election campaign). Is that much time
reasonable?
Once there's a telegraph in place, then that can be about halved, if the
writs are sent out by telegraph, and MPs are not necessarily expected to
return to their Australian constituencies to campaign (only newly elected
MPs would have to travel), but even 15 weeks seems excessive. And what
happens in the case of a disputed election (of which there were plenty in
the 19th century), where a commission has to be sent to the constituency?
All in all, I think the logistics may make this impossible as early as
you're thinking. By the early 20th century, with telegraphs in place, and
faster steam ships, it may be practical.

For it to work, the colonial representatives would have to be on their own
voting patterns, e.g. five years fixed term or maybe they would be officals
appointed by the colonial state councils.

[Pete Barrett]

Post by SolomonW
For it to work, the colonial representatives would have to be on their
own voting patterns, e.g. five years fixed term or maybe they would be
officals appointed by the colonial state councils.

In which case they wouldn't really be integrated into the political
system of Britain. OTL, Ireland _was_ so integrated, and returned MPs in
the same way as Scotland or Wales. Given the trend in 19th century
Britain towards greater inclusiveness in the electorate and early
elections (not a single Parliament ran to its full 7 year term in the
19th century, and only 6 out of 25 made it to 6 years), I'm not sure how
it would fit.

Something along the lines you're suggesting might have been done by
reforming the Privy Council to include members either elected directly,
or appointed by the governments of the UK and the Dominions. That was
always an option, but one which wasn't taken up. It would turn the PC
into something like an imperial legislature, particularly if seats were
allocated to the dominions on a the basis of population.

[SolomonW]

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by SolomonW
For it to work, the colonial representatives would have to be on their
own voting patterns, e.g. five years fixed term or maybe they would be
officals appointed by the colonial state councils.

In which case they wouldn't really be integrated into the political
system of Britain. OTL, Ireland _was_ so integrated, and returned MPs in
the same way as Scotland or Wales. Given the trend in 19th century
Britain towards greater inclusiveness in the electorate and early
elections (not a single Parliament ran to its full 7 year term in the
19th century, and only 6 out of 25 made it to 6 years), I'm not sure how
it would fit.
Something along the lines you're suggesting might have been done by
reforming the Privy Council to include members either elected directly,
or appointed by the governments of the UK and the Dominions. That was
always an option, but one which wasn't taken up. It would turn the PC
into something like an imperial legislature, particularly if seats were
allocated to the dominions on a the basis of population.

In which the Britian may have evolved into a United States of Britain. A
supreme body, the Privy Council and many state bodies under it.

[MummyChunk]

Post by SolomonW
About 1900, many people started to realise that the twentieth century was
going to be dominated by powers that had the resources of continents such
as the USA and what was frightening to Germany, Russia. One country that
people realized might be able to get such resources was Britain and there
was some discussion about it.
However, for such an expanded Britain it was too late. Its white colonies
had already moved away.
Now what if Britain decided to integrate her white areas earlier say in
1850.
At that stage, both Canadians and Australians were willing to join up
directly to Britain. Most considered themselves to be British. I suspect it
would be done by states. Canada would give about nine states; Australia
six, New Zealsnd one or two and South Africa would be a long-term problem
with the blacks and Boers, but something could be done for the white
English. Scotland, Ireland and Wales would give about one each and so on.
Each would send a representatives to London.
Britain now goes into the twentieth century with raw resources greater than
the US or Russia and a population about a third of the USA.
Note if India joins in this United States, the figures change dramatically
but I doubt the English would do this.

Came back to this thread as it popped up in my feed after reading some current news.

Interesting concepts mentioned. Thanks again for posting.


This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=403869031#403869031