futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837 
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jun 29, 2018 20:26:26 GMT
If the U.S. would have lost its war of independence and thus remained under British rule, could the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have eventually united into one country?
After all, they would have had a lot in common--being British settler colonies, being historically White, being industrialized and developed countries, et cetera.
Indeed, I have tended to compare the idea of an Anglosphere Union with the union between Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus which has historically existed. After all, in both cases, the countries involved are pretty culturally similar.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jun 29, 2018 20:27:59 GMT
I have now fixed the title of this thread.  |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 29, 2018 20:29:02 GMT
I have now fixed the title of this thread. Nice, what about the United Kingdom, are they not allowed to join this club. |
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jun 29, 2018 20:50:58 GMT
I have now fixed the title of this thread. Nice, what about the United Kingdom, are they not allowed to join this club. They are, but I am skeptical that the Brits would have been willing to be a part of a massive country where they themselves would have been a minority. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,240
|
Post by stevep on Jun 29, 2018 21:26:07 GMT
Nice, what about the United Kingdom, are they not allowed to join this club. They are, but I am skeptical that the Brits would have been willing to be a part of a massive country where they themselves would have been a minority.
I think they would be quite willing given the cultural similarities. Especially if it meant that the former colonies were taking a part in the general protection of the empire. Plus don't forget that when such a union/federation started its likely they are still going to be at least a substantial minority. Not to mention its probably that the capital would probably be London, at least initially.
The big problem is that until pretty much WWII levels of technology it would be very difficult holding such an organisation together. It would have to be very decentralised, in part because most regions would want to have as much power over their own activities and because of delays in communications. Also when your getting to modern day levels of population that's going to be a hell of a large civil population. True India has more, probably twice as much as those nations merged in the current day, but its also territorially a lot closer together. Going to be more difficult to have say a person in OTL Nevada say being that concerned about events in South Island New Zealand and vice versa.
Think you would probably have a number of regional parliaments, probably with British N America split into a number of separate regions with a federal government that would handle foreign affairs, national defence and possibly some aspects of common law and rights.
If such a large federal state was organised it might well include, at least some other areas of the former empire, especially if there had been levels of European settlement there. Thinking of places like southern and possibly eastern Africa, which would raise the question of equal rights and racial discrimination, which is why the question of human rights and legal protection for them might be controlled at central level.
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jun 29, 2018 21:33:58 GMT
They are, but I am skeptical that the Brits would have been willing to be a part of a massive country where they themselves would have been a minority.
1. I think they would be quite willing given the cultural similarities. Especially if it meant that the former colonies were taking a part in the general protection of the empire. Plus don't forget that when such a union/federation started its likely they are still going to be at least a substantial minority. Not to mention its probably that the capital would probably be London, at least initially.
2. The big problem is that until pretty much WWII levels of technology it would be very difficult holding such an organisation together. It would have to be very decentralised, in part because most regions would want to have as much power over their own activities and because of delays in communications. Also when your getting to modern day levels of population that's going to be a hell of a large civil population. True India has more, probably twice as much as those nations merged in the current day, but its also territorially a lot closer together. Going to be more difficult to have say a person in OTL Nevada say being that concerned about events in South Island New Zealand and vice versa.
3. Think you would probably have a number of regional parliaments, probably with British N America split into a number of separate regions with a federal government that would handle foreign affairs, national defence and possibly some aspects of common law and rights.
4. If such a large federal state was organised it might well include, at least some other areas of the former empire, especially if there had been levels of European settlement there. Thinking of places like southern and possibly eastern Africa, which would raise the question of equal rights and racial discrimination, which is why the question of human rights and legal protection for them might be controlled at central level.
1. Makes sense--though I still think that the Americans would eventually push to have the capital moved to North America given their gradually emerging population advantage over Britain. 2. Agreed that this state would need to be very decentralized. That said, though, it would also help to create some sort of "Brittanian" identity for this union so that there would be a feeling among its population that they are a part of a common people--a common Volk, if you will. Also, it's worth noting that the Soviet Union was very spread out and yet was able to hold itself together for 70 years. For what it's worth, Russia is very spread out right now--though with a much smaller population than this Anglosphere Union would have. 3. Completely agreed with this. 4. Would racists in the Anglosphere have actually been willing to include large numbers of Black people in this new state, though? After all, they would already have a large Black population in the southern U.S. to deal with and I doubt that they would be very eager to allow more Black people to immigrate to White-majority territories--and let's face it, a common state would mean freedom of movement within this state (which is why, for instance, a lot of African-Americans in the Southern U.S. were able to move North and West between 1910 and 1970 in real life). |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,240
|
Post by stevep on Jun 29, 2018 22:44:46 GMT
1. I think they would be quite willing given the cultural similarities. Especially if it meant that the former colonies were taking a part in the general protection of the empire. Plus don't forget that when such a union/federation started its likely they are still going to be at least a substantial minority. Not to mention its probably that the capital would probably be London, at least initially.
2. The big problem is that until pretty much WWII levels of technology it would be very difficult holding such an organisation together. It would have to be very decentralised, in part because most regions would want to have as much power over their own activities and because of delays in communications. Also when your getting to modern day levels of population that's going to be a hell of a large civil population. True India has more, probably twice as much as those nations merged in the current day, but its also territorially a lot closer together. Going to be more difficult to have say a person in OTL Nevada say being that concerned about events in South Island New Zealand and vice versa.
3. Think you would probably have a number of regional parliaments, probably with British N America split into a number of separate regions with a federal government that would handle foreign affairs, national defence and possibly some aspects of common law and rights.
4. If such a large federal state was organised it might well include, at least some other areas of the former empire, especially if there had been levels of European settlement there. Thinking of places like southern and possibly eastern Africa, which would raise the question of equal rights and racial discrimination, which is why the question of human rights and legal protection for them might be controlled at central level.
1. Makes sense--though I still think that the Americans would eventually push to have the capital moved to North America given their gradually emerging population advantage over Britain. 2. Agreed that this state would need to be very decentralized. That said, though, it would also help to create some sort of "Brittanian" identity for this union so that there would be a feeling among its population that they are a part of a common people--a common Volk, if you will. Also, it's worth noting that the Soviet Union was very spread out and yet was able to hold itself together for 70 years. For what it's worth, Russia is very spread out right now--though with a much smaller population than this Anglosphere Union would have. 3. Completely agreed with this. 4. Would racists in the Anglosphere have actually been willing to include large numbers of Black people in this new state, though? After all, they would already have a large Black population in the southern U.S. to deal with and I doubt that they would be very eager to allow more Black people to immigrate to White-majority territories--and let's face it, a common state would mean freedom of movement within this state (which is why, for instance, a lot of African-Americans in the Southern U.S. were able to move North and West between 1910 and 1970 in real life).
On this last point that might be the big question. However if you don't give them equal rights, then sooner or later your going to lose those colonies, unless your willing to use widespread slaughter. Since they have a lot of resources this might be an acceptable alternative. Early on mobility would be limited by wealth and the problems of intra-continental travel plus its not impossible to see the federation allowing limitations on movements between sections of it. This could be one price the white majority insists on to allow such states entry to the federation, or democratic voting in them. [At 1st your likely to see voting restricted by wealth to some degree anyway or other barriers, especially if its set up sometime in the 19thC.]
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jun 29, 2018 23:02:55 GMT
1. Makes sense--though I still think that the Americans would eventually push to have the capital moved to North America given their gradually emerging population advantage over Britain. 2. Agreed that this state would need to be very decentralized. That said, though, it would also help to create some sort of "Brittanian" identity for this union so that there would be a feeling among its population that they are a part of a common people--a common Volk, if you will. Also, it's worth noting that the Soviet Union was very spread out and yet was able to hold itself together for 70 years. For what it's worth, Russia is very spread out right now--though with a much smaller population than this Anglosphere Union would have. 3. Completely agreed with this. 4. Would racists in the Anglosphere have actually been willing to include large numbers of Black people in this new state, though? After all, they would already have a large Black population in the southern U.S. to deal with and I doubt that they would be very eager to allow more Black people to immigrate to White-majority territories--and let's face it, a common state would mean freedom of movement within this state (which is why, for instance, a lot of African-Americans in the Southern U.S. were able to move North and West between 1910 and 1970 in real life).
On this last point that might be the big question. However if you don't give them equal rights, then sooner or later your going to lose those colonies, unless your willing to use widespread slaughter. Since they have a lot of resources this might be an acceptable alternative. Early on mobility would be limited by wealth and the problems of intra-continental travel plus its not impossible to see the federation allowing limitations on movements between sections of it. This could be one price the white majority insists on to allow such states entry to the federation, or democratic voting in them. [At 1st your likely to see voting restricted by wealth to some degree anyway or other barriers, especially if its set up sometime in the 19thC.]
Yes, you are absolutely correct that giving them equal rights and full citizenship is a precondition for keeping these colonies. As for "an acceptable alternative," you mean giving them equal rights, correct? Indeed, I just want to clarify this part. Also, I am unsure that it would be particularly difficult to move across continents during this time. After all, all you would have needed to do was to get on a ship which is headed for either North America or Australia. You are correct that the White majority in this federation could insist on limitations on movement within this federation--perhaps with passing a literacy test being a requirement to vote. Overall, though, this would certainly be extremely interesting. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,240
|
Post by stevep on Jun 30, 2018 10:33:27 GMT
On this last point that might be the big question. However if you don't give them equal rights, then sooner or later your going to lose those colonies, unless your willing to use widespread slaughter. Since they have a lot of resources this might be an acceptable alternative. Early on mobility would be limited by wealth and the problems of intra-continental travel plus its not impossible to see the federation allowing limitations on movements between sections of it. This could be one price the white majority insists on to allow such states entry to the federation, or democratic voting in them. [At 1st your likely to see voting restricted by wealth to some degree anyway or other barriers, especially if its set up sometime in the 19thC.]
Yes, you are absolutely correct that giving them equal rights and full citizenship is a precondition for keeping these colonies. As for "an acceptable alternative," you mean giving them equal rights, correct? Indeed, I just want to clarify this part.Also, I am unsure that it would be particularly difficult to move across continents during this time. After all, all you would have needed to do was to get on a ship which is headed for either North America or Australia. You are correct that the White majority in this federation could insist on limitations on movement within this federation--perhaps with passing a literacy test being a requirement to vote. Overall, though, this would certainly be extremely interesting.
Sorry yes. That is what I meant. Need to be a bit more careful about how I word things.  Fear some might take the alternative interpretation but hopefully they would be defeated.
Travel between continents is practical and by ~1870 fairly speedy and safe, plus telegraphs by the end of the 19thC does make communications with your constituents fairly quick. However difficult to see someone in say London [at least initially] easily keeping track with people in say Oregon or Cape Town or Sydney for instance. Plus either they relocate almost permanently, moving their family with them or they are separated from them for a lot of the year while Parliament is in session. It gets better when you get to about 1960 level technology of a/c and then 1970-80 satellite tech when you can keep electronic contact face to face to some degree.
If, as I suspect thinking about it, you meant ordinary people moving, especially non-whites moving to say Britain or N America then the key factor might be less them moving than their voting rights staying in their 'home' country, with difficulty getting full citizenship as oppose to basic rights. Of course this only affects the original settlers and presumably their descendants would have full rights. However note as well that for centuries Britain had no formal restrictions on people from anywhere in the empire coming to Britain and relatively few came before the 1950s/60s. [True before the end of slavery in 1833 there may not have been something many coloured people, even if they had the capacity, would have wanted.]
Hopefully racial rights and equality would steadily spread.
Of course if such a huge British empire existed and developed in such a way its likely to see most of Europe largely united in at least one big war against it. Balance of power coming into play. This could be long and very costly for all involved. Plus assuming the industrial revolution starts in Britain 1st your likely to see the emergence of a European economic bloc seeking to compete.
|
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,587
|
Post by spanishspy on Jul 2, 2018 2:52:00 GMT
I can't see how this would happen before oceangoing becomes practical. Also, North America has far and away the most fertile land and the rivers to back it, which would mean that the North Americans would dominate any union to the point I can't see Australia or New Zealand wanting to join.
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jul 2, 2018 3:29:47 GMT
I can't see how this would happen before oceangoing becomes practical. Also, North America has far and away the most fertile land and the rivers to back it, which would mean that the North Americans would dominate any union to the point I can't see Australia or New Zealand wanting to join. Would a U.S.-Canada union have been much more realistic in this scenario? Also, what about an Australia-New Zealand union? |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 2, 2018 3:36:18 GMT
Also, what about an Australia-New Zealand union? A republic union ore still part of the British empire union. |
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jul 2, 2018 3:39:08 GMT
Also, what about an Australia-New Zealand union? A republic union ore still part of the British empire union. Either/or. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 2, 2018 3:40:58 GMT
A republic union ore still part of the British empire union. Either/or. That would be fun, a Australia-New Zealand union that takes the place of the none exciting United States. |
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,587
|
Post by spanishspy on Jul 2, 2018 4:20:42 GMT
I can't see how this would happen before oceangoing becomes practical. Also, North America has far and away the most fertile land and the rivers to back it, which would mean that the North Americans would dominate any union to the point I can't see Australia or New Zealand wanting to join. Would a U.S.-Canada union have been much more realistic in this scenario? Also, what about an Australia-New Zealand union? If the Revolution fails there will likely be very little distinction between 'America' and 'Canada.' They're just 'British North America.' And an Australia-New Zealand union is quite possible. |
|
Fear some might take the alternative interpretation but hopefully they would be defeated. 