The 13 Colonies stay British (discussion)

Make this sense ?

Overview of Kingdom of Burgund and Dutch Republic (more confederation then a Republic)

1779
the Treaty of Teschen is sign, with France permit, Habsburg and Wittelsbacher exchange Territory
Habsburg get Bavaria while the Wittelbacher get Netherland Austria as Burgund and Wittelbacher Karl Theodor become King.

During 1779 to 1799
King Karl Theodor of Burgund manage to reform and make Burgund a prosperous Kingdom
However the Dutch Republic hamper the traffic to harbour of Antwerp, Gent and Zee-Brugge, do Dutch economic problems

1785
happens the Batavian revolution in Dutch in Republic (republicans vs Royalist) were Prussia intervene military in favour of King Willem V of Orangje.
after that King Willem V of Orangje extent his powers from Stadtholder of Republic, to King of confederation.

1789-1791
Do famine in 1789 let to uprise in The Principality of Liege, were the prince-bishop de Hoensbroeck flee, only to return with Austrian Army in 1791,
to restore bloody Catholic law and order.
He finds The Principality of Liege under control of King of Burgund, who arrest the former prince-bishop.
While in Vatican after generous donations by the Wittelbach, can take over The Principality of Liege, with prince-bishop of house Wittebach
This consolidate most of Burgund territory.

1799
King Karl Theodor I. died, his successor is cousin Maximilian Joseph become King of Burgund.


1806
King Willem V of Orangje died his son become Willem IV of Oranie-Nassau
Willem IV over time become more and more autocracy ruler,
Suppress the free press, exile politician who oppose him to Colonies,
Abolish freedom of Religion in favour of Protestantism.

1812
Famine hit Europe, in Dutch confederation erupt a revolt against Willem IV autocracy.
The confederation start to disintegrate as part with catholic majority seceded from Republic.
Staats-Barbrant, Staats-Vlandern and Staats-Opper-Gelre and Overmaas join the Kingdom of Burgund.
King Maximilian Joseph offers them safety.
in mean time Prussia army intervene in revolt, not restore law and order, but gain Territory !
Like Duchy of Guelders were Prussia hold claims since 1713.
King Willem IV escape the Dutch confederation to his german possession of house Nassau.

in end remains the Republic of Holland (Holland Utrecht Zeeland) and east province join the Holy Roman Reich of the German nation.
While the Kingdom of Burgund and Prussia extend there territory.

I notice that expansion of Prussia eastward will have two effects.

one:
The protestant Prussia gain large population of Polish Catholics.
would this let that protestantism not become State-religion so defended by Kings and Emperors of Prussia ?

also would they focus on new territory to consolidate there influence here
means Königberg remain Capital of Kingdom of Prussia instead of Berlin ?
would Prussia abandon there interest to united there west areas ?

Two:
A large Kingdom outside the Holy Roman Empire (HRE),
Yes Prussia is part of HRE but only Brandenburg-Prussia, the rest of Kingdom of Prussia lies outside !
Something what Austria-Hungary could consider as future threat
either new war with Prussia or conflict about who is next Emperor of HRE...

Slavery would become further entrenched in "American" society, given the influence of the Royal African Company. What is IOTL the Midwest would likely become "Slave States", and slavery perhaps becomes entrenched in New York and New Jersey took. With the money and manpower of the Colonies, perhaps the George IV could make a play for Neo-Absolutism for a time in a sorta-replication of Caesar. Certainly the OTL 1833 Abolition Law would never come to pass, at least as we know it.




The French Revolution as we know it wouldn't happen because the French Monarchy isn't as indebted as OTL due to the lack of the American intervention. It's exceedingly likely the revolutionary fervor as avoided as a minimum, so the most I could see is a turn to Constitutional Monarchy.

Most of those "Northern States" would be Slave states here, from the Midwest to New York and New Jersey. The only places to avoid Slavery would be Pennsylvania and New England, with the latter's turn against slavery as an institution being tied to the end of the Slave trade, given that most of that was conducted on their shipping; once the trade shut down legally, their ability to profit off it was removed.



In Europe, sure, but not in this ATL UK. The Anti-Slavery movement only achieved political influence once the American colonies broke away; until then, the Crown and a lot of the British merchant class profited off it to the extent they repeatedly rejected Colonial efforts to limit or suppress the importation of slave.

"Before the American Revolution, both the colonies and Great Britain regulated the African slave trade to what became the United States. The British government gave special protection to the Royal African Company, which brought more Africans slaves to the American colonies than any other single entity. The slave trade was an important part of Britain's mercantile policy: it collected taxes on the slaves while colonial governments both taxed them and occasionally sought to limit their arrivals.

After the Stono Rebellion (1739), South Carolina suspended the trade for a few years because its leaders believed that large numbers of freshly imported Africans would undermine the safety of the colony. Then in 1751 South Carolina imposed a special tax on foreign slaves to slow the trade and, nine years later, once again banned it altogether because leaders of the colony still feared the growing number of African-born slaves. The royal authorities disallowed the law. But in 1764 the colony levied new taxes on African-born slaves because, as the legislature noted, their rising number "may prove of the most dangerous consequence."

Shortly before the Revolution, Virginia also tried to ban the trade, not for prudential reasons but to prevent the outflow of capital from the colony. Virginians attempted to use prohibitive taxes to discourage the trade, but the Crown overruled this law, because the slave trade was vital to the British economy and because the Royal African Company had powerful patrons in the government."

With the colonies still in America and the practice rapidly spreading into the Central Atlantic and OTL Midwest, this influence and economic necessity will grow, rather than shrink.

[[/div][/quote]

We can definitely say France avoids the Revolution, however, given it's immediate catalysts have been averted:

"French involvement in the Seven Years’ War and the American War of Independence added substantially to the state’s debts. Jacques Necker, finance minister from 1777 and 1781, had largely funded France’s war effort through loans. As a result the state debt ballooned to between 8 and 12 billion livres by 1789. Serving that debt consumed an increasing share of state revenue. Moreover, worries over France’s creditworthiness meant loans could only be acquired at higher rates of interest.

Fiscal and diplomatic problems came together in 1787. The international prestige of the monarchy was undermined when it was unable to intervene in the conflict between republican and Orangist forces in the neighbouring United Provinces because of a lack of funds."

The prestige of the Monarchy remains intact and the inflationary episode of the late 1780s is likewise avoided, since debt payments have not reached 65% of GDP. Problems persist, but it's worth noting even IOTL France was on track to reform, rather than revolution in 1789-1791 until the situation spiraled out of control. With more breathing room, the ability to gradually reform is there.



Louisiana doesn't exist here, it's just New Spain so I don't see how that would effect France.



The Colonists were Pro-Monarchy instead of Pro-Parliament; most of the American leadership did not think of King George III as the problem until later on. It's likely in the aftermath the Monarchy can bind the Colonists too them, especially via the Crown's support of Slavery's interests. Much as Caesar used Gaul, I expect George III and IV to use the Colonies to their advantage, although I agree eventually this will lead to social issues. You probably end up with a situation where you have the inverse of OTL between France and the UK; the former evolves into a stable Constitutional Monarchy while the later has a Republican Revolution later on. I could see the Crown and large numbers of exiles fleeing to America after that.

British Anti-Slavery sentiments were tied into the economic vitality of the system. Once the American colonies were lost and the Caribbean plantations began unprofitable due to advances in sugar technology, only then did Abolitionism come into the fore as a serious movement; the first proposal to ban the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade wasn't even until 1792, for the record.

There was no powerful abolitionist force in the Colonies, only a desire to regulate the Slave Trade itself due to demographic concerns. Given the Crown overruled them every time, why are we to assume this stops, especially with the Cotton Boom soon to start with the cotton gin coming around in the 1790s?



The problem here being the Pro-Slave Bloc is far longer, more financially powerful and remains politically connected to the top of the British system. This is not the era of mass democracy.



Future wars are certainly possible, but that also means the other problems for France in this era won't be happening in tandem to cause the perfect storm that was IOTL; the inflationary wave hit at the same time as crop failures caused by the 1780s Icelandic eruptions. The debt burden will be lower and the food situation much better later on.



Personally I think in the long run most of North America will be taken by the "British", with the center of the "British Empire" moving de facto to the Americas, as the "Americans" will have increasing sway and influence due to their larger population and wealth.



I suspect the long run result is the inversion of OTL; Britain has a devastating revolution while France undergoes a gradual path of reform. The British Crown and large amounts of the population flee to America as a result.