Discussion:
Queen Elizabeth II visits her American realm
(too old to reply)
Jack Linthicum
2007-07-01 22:53:25 UTC
Permalink
I don't know we missed this very significant article and its
application to the study of WI. In that sense it is a pitiful attempt
to combine the actual history with what a journalist is able to
imagine a British Empire that not only included the American states,
but had British states too. I would like to see this clown's
idea of how Parliament functions with a President and a Vice-
President. Freedom of the press, within limits.

What would have happen if Britain still did rule America?
By ANDREW ROBERTS - t 08:20am on 9th May 2007



Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is in her 81st year, and it is
perfectly understandable that she should want to take life a little
easier.

Happiest on her Windsor, Balmoral and Sandringham estates, she travels
much less nowadays to her realm's more far-flung western states, such
as Vancouver, Texas and California.

It was a gross error of political protocol, therefore, that President
Tony Blair was not in Washington, District of Columbia, when she came
to visit, but instead handed over the duty to his Vice-President,
George W. Bush.

Of course, Mr Blair has been globe-trotting ever since his presidency
entered its ' lameduck' phase last autumn, but it might have been
expected that when his monarch came to visit her White House residence
- the American home of British monarchs ever since 1812 - he would
have cut short his transatlantic job-seeking to welcome her
personally.

The forthcoming elections to succeed Blair, between the Tory nominee,
Vice-President Bush, and his Democratic challenger, Governor Gordon
Brown of South Scotland, are entering their final phase, and the
Queen's visit will be closely watched for any indication of her
personal preferences.

Needless to say, after half a century on the throne, Her Majesty was
far too professional to let slip any hint of whom she would like to
win.

Although he is considered one of the most successful state governors
in the entire 75-state Union, Brown is facing one of the most
formidable electionwinning machines of recent years.

"It is good to be back in Washington," the Queen started her speech to
the state banquet in the White House last night, attended by both
contenders.

"Sometimes I am asked why the name of a man who was, after all, hanged
for treason should have been retained as the name of this great city.

"I answer that although George Washington was indeed a rebel, he was
nonetheless a courageous and far-sighted man. For a short period, he
believed he had achieved an independent America, and signed a
declaration to that effect in 1776.

"If it had not been for my great-great-great-great-grandfather George
III's reinvasion and subsequent victory in the War of 1812, I might be
coming here as a guest from Britain, rather than as your sovereign
Queen."

There were titters in the audience at the mere mention of such an
absurdity.

The rest of her speech touched on various international issues before
she made the surprise announcement that caught the attention of the
evening news channels,

"In the light of my ever-advancing age, I will be spending more time
at my residences in Kentucky and Florida than hitherto, enjoying the
horse-breeding and racing opportunities of the former and the mild
climate of the latter.

"The Prince of Wales will be taking on many of my more onerous duties,
such asc investitures and state visits, and will be dividing his time
between his present home in New York and Clarence House in London."

All eyes turned to the Prince, who fiddled with his cuff-links, but
looked pleased.

"There were many moments in history when the world has had cause to
look back with satisfaction on my ancestor's victory in 1812,"

Her Majesty continued, "and the subsequent reincorporation of his
American colonies into the British Empire.

"We are reminded, for example, of August 1914 when the German Empire
came perilously close to invading France and Belgium, and stepped back
only when President Woodrow Wilson and Vice-President Herbert Asquith
sent 20 American and 15 British divisions to the South Coast of
England ready to embark on the outbreak of war.

"In my own lifetime, Adolf Hitler might not have been overthrown by
the German generals in March 1936 if the Roosevelt-Churchill
inistration had not given orders to fire on any German troops crossing
into the Rhineland.

"The success of the League of Nations in keeping peace in the 20th
century was also largely due to the great Anglo-American commitment to
its success, and willingness to

back up its words with the threat of force."

The Queen then said that, although her transatlantic crossing in the
new Royal Yacht Atlantia - a gift of the BP-Exxon conglomerat - had
been enjoyable, "henceforth it will be my son and the Duchess of
Cornwall who will embark on the next three state visits, to President
Sarkozy in Paris, Tsar Alexander IV in St Petersburg and, of course,
the Sultan Mehmed VII in Constantinople.

"Fortunately," the Queen continued, "the fact that no European or
world war broke out in 1914 meant that certain dangerous movements,
such as those who followed the creed known to history as Marxism-
Leninism, and those who wished to split up the territories of our long-
standing ally the Ottoman Empire, were never able to impose their
malign will upon the 20th century, which was instead dominated by the
munificence and decency of the English-speaking peoples.

"Had there been a devastating war when that century was in its teens,
it is perfectly possible, for example, that Vladimir Lenin might not
have committed suicide in despair in Zurich in 1916."

She went on to say how much she enjoyed her foreign tours, "I have
happy memories of visiting, especially, my first cousins the Romanovs
in their beautiful palaces such as Tsarskoe Selo and the Winter
Palace."

Her Majesty ended by emphasising how the northern seven states in what
used to be Canada needed to integrate more wholeheartedly into the
life of the 52 American and 16 British states.

The affection ordinary Americans have for the monarchy might seem
surprising considering that it originated from across the Atlantic,
but members of the British Royal Family were always very good at
adapting themselves to new circumstances.

Above all, their support for Protestant mercantilism, democratic
reforms and anti-French military adventures endeared them to their
American subjects.

As constitutional monarchs they went along with the progressive mood
of the people and were in the forefront of the abolition of slavery in
the reign of Queen Victoria of UGBA (the Union of Great Britain and
America).

Indeed, many historians now feel that without Victoria's common sense
in supporting abolition in the early 1860s, Americans might even have
fought a civil war over the issue.

The overwhelming power that the Anglo-American Empire, stretching from
Australia to the Philippines and across India to the Atlantic, enjoyed
throughout the 19th and 20th centuries meant that from the time of the
defeat of Napoleon, the world has been spared the regular devastating
wars that so scarred the history of Europe after the fall of the Roman
Empire.

The truth is that constitutional monarchy seems to have worked well in
the American context.

Except for the Queen's brave decision to dismiss the Nixon
administration over the Watergate scandal in 1973 - long before the
issue managed to poison Washington politics - there has been no need
in recent years for her to exercise the great powers that she retains
under the constitution.

The Royal Family has been an institution around which all aspects of
American society have been able to coalesce over the past two
centuries.

That is principally why everyone is looking forward so much to the
bicentennial celebrations of 2012, which are set to dwarf the London
Olympics.

For that is the time when Americans and Britons will come together to
celebrate the reestablishment of monarchy on the American continent.
From Los Angeles to Brighton, from San Francisco to Thanet, we shall
all cry, God Save The Queen!
Stan Engel
2007-07-02 02:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
I don't know we missed this very significant article and its
application to the study of WI. In that sense it is a pitiful attempt
to combine the actual history with what a journalist is able to
imagine a British Empire that not only included the American states,
but had British states too. I would like to see this clown's
idea of how Parliament functions with a President and a Vice-
President. Freedom of the press, within limits.
Spain does just fine with a King, a President (Presidente del Gobierno) and
Vice-President (Vicepresidente del Gobierno). There are apparently two
Vice-Presidents in Spain. In Italy, the President of the Council of
Ministers (Italian: Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri) does the same
things as a Prime Minister. I recall that Berlusconi was giving a press
conference and the reporters addressed him as President.

It's all in the words but some people get touchy about it. I recall in
usenet somebody from Spain saying quite forcefully that his country had a
President, not a Prime Minister. Hitler didn't like the sound of the title
Chancellor (Kanzler ) so he dropped it in mid-1939.

The idea of a no Revolutionary War timeline has come up several times in
this group. I posted "Anglo-American Supremacy" and
"One World Governments-Repost" back in 1997. I can't see the British Empire
becoming a federated entity with plenty of American, British and (I guess)
Australian and Filipino states. However, the British would in some ATL view
the American Dominion as an ally instead of a threat to Canada. I could see
Americans aiding the Empire in expanding British rule to areas that never
experienced it OTL.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
William Black
2007-07-02 12:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
It was a gross error of political protocol, therefore, that President
Tony Blair was not in Washington, District of Columbia, when she came
to visit, but instead handed over the duty to his Vice-President,
George W. Bush.
Very doubtful that these two would ever be on the same ticket.

Much more likely that a Clinton (WJ)/Blair presidency would be followed by a
Brown/Clinton(HR) presidency.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
n***@hotmail.com
2007-07-02 12:32:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Jack Linthicum
It was a gross error of political protocol, therefore, that President
Tony Blair was not in Washington, District of Columbia, when she came
to visit, but instead handed over the duty to his Vice-President,
George W. Bush.
Very doubtful that these two would ever be on the same ticket.
Much more likely that a Clinton (WJ)/Blair presidency would be followed by a
Brown/Clinton(HR) presidency.
Actually a Bush(GW)/Hague(W) Presidency would have it's amusing
points. I'm surprised that the original article didn't mention the
Reagan/Thatcher Presidency.

Cheers,
Nigel.
William Black
2007-07-02 13:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@hotmail.com
Post by William Black
Post by Jack Linthicum
It was a gross error of political protocol, therefore, that President
Tony Blair was not in Washington, District of Columbia, when she came
to visit, but instead handed over the duty to his Vice-President,
George W. Bush.
Very doubtful that these two would ever be on the same ticket.
Much more likely that a Clinton (WJ)/Blair presidency would be followed by a
Brown/Clinton(HR) presidency.
Actually a Bush(GW)/Hague(W) Presidency would have it's amusing
points. I'm surprised that the original article didn't mention the
Reagan/Thatcher Presidency.
Bush as President?

Hauge may be something of a prat, but he's a very clever and articulate
part.

However British politicians do tend to have more dynamic public
personalities than their American counterparts. Probably because they're
required, by the parliamentary system, to think on their feet and be
reasonably spontaneously witty.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
n***@hotmail.com
2007-07-02 16:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by n***@hotmail.com
Post by William Black
Post by Jack Linthicum
It was a gross error of political protocol, therefore, that President
Tony Blair was not in Washington, District of Columbia, when she came
to visit, but instead handed over the duty to his Vice-President,
George W. Bush.
Very doubtful that these two would ever be on the same ticket.
Much more likely that a Clinton (WJ)/Blair presidency would be followed by a
Brown/Clinton(HR) presidency.
Actually a Bush(GW)/Hague(W) Presidency would have it's amusing
points. I'm surprised that the original article didn't mention the
Reagan/Thatcher Presidency.
Bush as President?
Hauge may be something of a prat, but he's a very clever and articulate
part.
Well, I was thinking that Hague would have been too young to be
President, but you're probably right. Actually a Hague/Cheney ticket
would be more likely - young, articulate guy as front man with an
older Veep to add a bit of gravitas.
Post by William Black
However British politicians do tend to have more dynamic public
personalities than their American counterparts. Probably because they're
required, by the parliamentary system, to think on their feet and be
reasonably spontaneously witty.
ObWI: Presidential Question Time. If presidents had to answer
questions from Congress every week (like British PMs in Parliament),
who would have been exceptionally good/bad at it ? In the modern era
when such things are broadcast, would any President be so bad that he
would lose re-election (or conversely, would it have helped any
President get re-elected who only served one term in OTL). If the
Veep stands in when the President is unavailable, who would have been
exceptionally good/bad and would it have changed their election
chances when it came to running as President ?

Cheers,
Nigel.
William Black
2007-07-02 16:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@hotmail.com
Post by William Black
Hauge may be something of a prat, but he's a very clever and articulate
part.
Well, I was thinking that Hague would have been too young to be
President, but you're probably right. Actually a Hague/Cheney ticket
would be more likely - young, articulate guy as front man with an
older Veep to add a bit of gravitas.
Post by William Black
However British politicians do tend to have more dynamic public
personalities than their American counterparts. Probably because they're
required, by the parliamentary system, to think on their feet and be
reasonably spontaneously witty.
ObWI: Presidential Question Time. If presidents had to answer
questions from Congress every week (like British PMs in Parliament),
who would have been exceptionally good/bad at it ?
I'd have like to have seen Regan do it.

He tended to have a neat turn of phrase and his actor's delivery and timing
were both supeb.

In the modern era
Post by n***@hotmail.com
when such things are broadcast, would any President be so bad that he
would lose re-election (or conversely, would it have helped any
President get re-elected who only served one term in OTL).
PM's Question Time remains the 'make or break' for a British PM.

A poor performance can doom him/her.

All the major ministers of state have to submit to questions. Not just the
PM, so the Defence Minister, Foreign Secretary, Chancellor (Finance) and
Home Secretary all go through it at some point about once a month or so,
but the PM gets it every week...

A party often decides on their new leader based on the 'performance at the
dispatch box'...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Peter Bruells
2007-07-02 12:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
I don't know we missed this very significant article and its
application to the study of WI. In that sense it is a pitiful attempt
to combine the actual history with what a journalist is able to
imagine a British Empire that not only included the American states,
but had British states too. I would like to see this clown's
idea of how Parliament functions with a President and a Vice-
President. Freedom of the press, within limits.
What would have happen if Britain still did rule America?
By ANDREW ROBERTS - t 08:20am on 9th May 2007
....
Post by Jack Linthicum
"We are reminded, for example, of August 1914 when the German Empire
came perilously close to invading France and Belgium, and stepped
back only when President Woodrow Wilson and Vice-President Herbert
Asquith sent 20 American and 15 British divisions to the South Coast
of England ready to embark on the outbreak of war.
"In my own lifetime, Adolf Hitler might not have been overthrown by
the German generals in March 1936 if the Roosevelt-Churchill
inistration had not given orders to fire on any German troops crossing
into the Rhineland.
Okay, why exactly would there be an Adolf Hitler if there wasn't was
World War to lose and why excatly would he need to to invade an area
that had been part of Germany since the 19th century and NOT lost to
Entente control after World War I?
n***@hotmail.com
2007-07-02 13:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bruells
Post by Jack Linthicum
I don't know we missed this very significant article and its
application to the study of WI. In that sense it is a pitiful attempt
to combine the actual history with what a journalist is able to
imagine a British Empire that not only included the American states,
but had British states too. I would like to see this clown's
idea of how Parliament functions with a President and a Vice-
President. Freedom of the press, within limits.
What would have happen if Britain still did rule America?
By ANDREW ROBERTS - t 08:20am on 9th May 2007
....
Post by Jack Linthicum
"We are reminded, for example, of August 1914 when the German Empire
came perilously close to invading France and Belgium, and stepped
back only when President Woodrow Wilson and Vice-President Herbert
Asquith sent 20 American and 15 British divisions to the South Coast
of England ready to embark on the outbreak of war.
"In my own lifetime, Adolf Hitler might not have been overthrown by
the German generals in March 1936 if the Roosevelt-Churchill
inistration had not given orders to fire on any German troops crossing
into the Rhineland.
Okay, why exactly would there be an Adolf Hitler if there wasn't was
World War to lose and why excatly would he need to to invade an area
that had been part of Germany since the 19th century and NOT lost to
Entente control after World War I?
There's plenty of nits like that to pick (why would the UGBA take
until 1860 to get rid of slavery, for example). In this case, the
deployment of British/American troops might have discouraged Germany
from invading Belgium, but it wouldn't have prevented the war between
Germany/Austria Hungry and Russia/France. With Britain/America
remaining neutral, it is likely that Germany would win. As you say,
that would short-circuit the rise of Hitler and make it unecessary for
Germany to enter the Rhineland.

Cheers,
Nigel.
m***@willamette.edu
2007-07-02 19:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@hotmail.com
There's plenty of nits like that to pick (why would the UGBA take
until 1860 to get rid of slavery, for example).
Personally I've always found WI's in which the US remained part of the
British Empire and abolishes slavery in the 1830's to be a bit
unrealistic. I think the most probable result of a united British
Empire is the slave-owners in the Caribbean and the slave owners in
the South working out some type of political alliance to retard
abolition in Britain and America (as well as making alliances with
factory owners in Britain who would fear the loss of cotton, a very
important crop for the early industrialists). Also, if the US south
was part of the British empire, that would greatly increase the number
of slaves in the British Empire, making abolitionism that much more
expensive. I can easily see a united British Empire holding onto
slavery until the 1860's.

--
Mike Ralls
The Horny Goat
2007-07-02 20:14:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@willamette.edu
Post by n***@hotmail.com
There's plenty of nits like that to pick (why would the UGBA take
until 1860 to get rid of slavery, for example).
Personally I've always found WI's in which the US remained part of the
British Empire and abolishes slavery in the 1830's to be a bit
unrealistic. I think the most probable result of a united British
Empire is the slave-owners in the Caribbean and the slave owners in
the South working out some type of political alliance to retard
abolition in Britain and America (as well as making alliances with
factory owners in Britain who would fear the loss of cotton, a very
important crop for the early industrialists). Also, if the US south
was part of the British empire, that would greatly increase the number
of slaves in the British Empire, making abolitionism that much more
expensive. I can easily see a united British Empire holding onto
slavery until the 1860's.
So you clearly see Wilberforce and his ilk failng miserably?
m***@willamette.edu
2007-07-02 21:06:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
So you clearly see Wilberforce and his ilk failng miserably?
Being delayed over OTL does not constitute "failing miserably" IMO. I
think the Abolitionists in the United British Empire would still come
out on top, but it would be a harder battle than the one they fought
in OTL. The sheer increase in the number of slaves and slave-owners
virtually guarantees that, even taking into account additional
Abolitionists allies in America.

Question for the group: Do you think remaining part of the British
Empire would, on the whole, increase Abolitionist sentiment in the
northern parts British North America?

--
Mike Ralls
William Black
2007-07-02 21:27:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@willamette.edu
Post by The Horny Goat
So you clearly see Wilberforce and his ilk failng miserably?
Being delayed over OTL does not constitute "failing miserably" IMO. I
think the Abolitionists in the United British Empire would still come
out on top, but it would be a harder battle than the one they fought
in OTL. The sheer increase in the number of slaves and slave-owners
virtually guarantees that, even taking into account additional
Abolitionists allies in America.
Question for the group: Do you think remaining part of the British
Empire would, on the whole, increase Abolitionist sentiment in the
northern parts British North America?
With no 'manifest destiny' and with India as part of the Empire is there a
need for the large scale use of slave labour in North America?

There's no big expansion West, or at least it's slower and more 'friendly'
to the indigenous people.

Plus lots of 'brown' solders kicking about armed to the teeth and not
inclined to take anything much in the way of racism from anyone.

Ghurkhas and Sikhs aren't noted for their tolerance to insults and there'd
be plenty of those out on the American frontier.

Now that's an interesting idea. A couple of regiments of 'Trans Border'
Pathans in New Mexico fighting Apaches...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
The Horny Goat
2007-07-02 23:28:58 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:27:09 GMT, "William Black"
Post by William Black
Ghurkhas and Sikhs aren't noted for their tolerance to insults and there'd
be plenty of those out on the American frontier.
Now that's an interesting idea. A couple of regiments of 'Trans Border'
Pathans in New Mexico fighting Apaches...
Hmmm. Indians vs. Indians.

Unless there was an encounter between some of Bose's men and American
troops in WW2 that I don't know about I'm not aware this ever happened
in OTL. <grin>
Jack Linthicum
2007-07-02 23:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@willamette.edu
Post by The Horny Goat
So you clearly see Wilberforce and his ilk failng miserably?
Being delayed over OTL does not constitute "failing miserably" IMO. I
think the Abolitionists in the United British Empire would still come
out on top, but it would be a harder battle than the one they fought
in OTL. The sheer increase in the number of slaves and slave-owners
virtually guarantees that, even taking into account additional
Abolitionists allies in America.
Question for the group: Do you think remaining part of the British
Empire would, on the whole, increase Abolitionist sentiment in the
northern parts British North America?
--
Mike Ralls
Think of the use of Kanakas in the Pacific in the 19th Century. I
would guess in a sort of Charles Darwin Survival and Superiority of
the Fittest (White men) society that the use of slaves or thinly
disguised contract labor would extend into the early 20th Century.
Think how well Henry Ford would have been able to produce automobiles
with a "dedicated" labor force, committed to that five dollars a day
and free housing.
The Horny Goat
2007-07-02 23:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@willamette.edu
Post by The Horny Goat
So you clearly see Wilberforce and his ilk failng miserably?
Being delayed over OTL does not constitute "failing miserably" IMO. I
think the Abolitionists in the United British Empire would still come
out on top, but it would be a harder battle than the one they fought
in OTL. The sheer increase in the number of slaves and slave-owners
virtually guarantees that, even taking into account additional
Abolitionists allies in America.
Well yes and no - abolition in 1860 means a delay of more than a
generation from OTL and thus one has to question whether ITTL British
abolitionist sentiment achieved much at all in the period 1825-30.

A >LOT< depends of course on how one came to have a "United British
Empire". I see three possible scenarios: (a) where London was more
flexible than OTL and there never was an American Revolution, (b)
where there was a Revolution that was crushed by force of arms (this I
see as being the most likely method), and (c) where US independence is
gained but crushed in the War of 1812.

In scenario (c) you get a highly centralized regime that RULES (with a
capital R) the Empire from London. It is rather likely to be quite
repressive. On the other hand, what London says goes so abolition is
imposed from above with little concern for what plantation owners and
other slave holders might think. This is in my opinion the most
dystopian of the three.

It is also the least likely since Britain simultaneously has a small
problem with France and Americans in this era were fairly pragmatic
(e.g. once Britain and France are NOT at war Americans would make
peace on pretty much whatever terms they had to since there's no way
they would try to fight on alone). I simply cannot see any plausible
US president fighting on to the bitter end once the destruction of the
United States becomes plausible.

Option (b) probably arose from a short war ending no later than 1777.
Given the history of the Revolution I'm inclined to think this was
MORE likely than OTL since it involves something like Washington being
unsuccessful either retreating from New York City or failing to
establish the Continentals as a viable regular force. This is the only
way you get the rebellion ending on terms that can't be described as
"bloody-minded repression". Presumably Adams and most of the founding
fathers either flee or hang separately - I don't see any hope of a For
Want of a Nail scenario in this case.

By the time you get to Yorktown (presumably with the French navy not
getting there in time) you get a much more bitter peace and a scenario
much like (c).

This is the scenario that is most likely to see late abolition since
it leads to a situation in London where the government KNOWS it has to
make concessions but is not at all happy about it. As such there is
little time for British abolitionists in the eyes of the government.
Whether it leads to Lord North being considered one of the greatest
PMs ever is an exercise to the reader.

Scenario (a) is less likely than (b) since it means a government that
is actually listening and is willing to make changes. If you get the
view that "Any Englishman is an Englishman be he on whichever side of
the Atlantic" you may get a couple of run-on effects: Jefferson and
Locke are the intellectual godfathers of "this" empire which may make
the resulting explosion in France even more radical though less
inclined to make war with Britain. It may also speed the cause of the
abolitionists with slave holders viewed as Rhodesia and South Africa
were in the 1970s - e.g. "not our kind of people".

Of the three I think scenario (b) to be the most likely since my read
on George III and the pre-1776 government ministries make an outcome
like (a) rather unlikely. I just don't see blacks (and Indians - of
either variety) viewed as the equal of a white Englishman in this era
by the average Englishman whether he be on this side of the water or
back in Old Blighty.

Obviously all of this has huge effects on the future history of Canada
and Australia as well though Britain proper and the 13 Colonies are
the only regions with sufficient population to be more than bit
players.
Post by m***@willamette.edu
Question for the group: Do you think remaining part of the British
Empire would, on the whole, increase Abolitionist sentiment in the
northern parts British North America?
n***@hotmail.com
2007-07-03 07:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@willamette.edu
Post by n***@hotmail.com
There's plenty of nits like that to pick (why would the UGBA take
until 1860 to get rid of slavery, for example).
Personally I've always found WI's in which the US remained part of the
British Empire and abolishes slavery in the 1830's to be a bit
unrealistic. I think the most probable result of a united British
Empire is the slave-owners in the Caribbean and the slave owners in
the South working out some type of political alliance to retard
abolition in Britain and America (as well as making alliances with
factory owners in Britain who would fear the loss of cotton, a very
important crop for the early industrialists). Also, if the US south
was part of the British empire, that would greatly increase the number
of slaves in the British Empire, making abolitionism that much more
expensive. I can easily see a united British Empire holding onto
slavery until the 1860's.
If it were the case of the Americans losing the American War of
Independance then you are probably right. In this situation, however,
you have the USA being reconquered in 1812. The North American
colonies would be in a weaker position after such a war than they
would be if they had remained part of the empire in between times, so
would be less able to resist abolition. Also you have to consider
what tactics Britain might use in such a reconquest. It is quite
possible that some form of British *Emancipation Proclamation would be
issued, freeing slaves on the North American continent while allowing
the Caribbean slave-owners to keep their slaves.

Cheers,
Nigel.
Graham
2007-07-07 18:54:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@hotmail.com
Post by Peter Bruells
Post by Jack Linthicum
"We are reminded, for example, of August 1914 when the German Empire
came perilously close to invading France and Belgium, and stepped
back only when President Woodrow Wilson and Vice-President Herbert
Asquith sent 20 American and 15 British divisions to the South Coast
of England ready to embark on the outbreak of war.
"In my own lifetime, Adolf Hitler might not have been overthrown by
the German generals in March 1936 if the Roosevelt-Churchill
inistration had not given orders to fire on any German troops crossing
into the Rhineland.
Okay, why exactly would there be an Adolf Hitler if there wasn't was
World War to lose and why excatly would he need to to invade an area
that had been part of Germany since the 19th century and NOT lost to
Entente control after World War I?
There's plenty of nits like that to pick (why would the UGBA take
until 1860 to get rid of slavery, for example). In this case, the
deployment of British/American troops might have discouraged Germany
from invading Belgium, but it wouldn't have prevented the war between
Germany/Austria Hungry and Russia/France. With Britain/America
remaining neutral, it is likely that Germany would win. As you say,
that would short-circuit the rise of Hitler and make it unecessary for
Germany to enter the Rhineland.
How does Germany go about invading France in this
TL without the Belgian route? I think that the Franco-
German boundary was heavily defended, and there
would be logistical difficulties in going through
Switzerland...

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...