What if the 13 Colonies....

[Toon³]

What if the 13 Colonies were given representation in the British Parliament?

Would revolution still have occured?

Would the colonies expanded westward?

There are probably hundreds more what if's for this question.

[DoctorD]

Should we rename this forum the "Alternate history" forum?

but seriously, read the recent treatments of the French and Indian War. This war made Americans first call themselves "American". Afterwards, the British did not want the colonists moving west into Indian-occupied lands because (1) those indians were British allies during the F&I war; (2) it would be too expensive to protect the settlers.

Even with Parliamentary representation, the colonies would have seceded because of this factor sooner or later.

[JBigjake]

What if the 13 Colonies were given representation in the British Parliament?
While it would have mooted the "No taxation without representation" argument, it would only have delayed the inevitable. Businessmen in the Colonies wanted to control their own destinies. Britain controlled the economy of the colonies & viewed them as a source for raw materials & a market for British wares, many of which could not legally be produced in the colonies. Colonists were seeking a new life in the New World, not fortune hunting prior to a return to Britain. There was also a religious streak in the independence movement, as many had fled religious persecution in Europe, although some did their best to duplicate it here! Denying colonists the opportunity to push further west also fueled resentment.

[Toon³]

Could it have stayed British if it was given a dominion status, like canada?

They colonist could control their own area and make their own decisions. This would have also allowed the British to retain economic and military links with the colonies.

[nicephoras]

What if the 13 Colonies were given representation in the British Parliament?

Almost certain not to make a difference.

Would revolution still have occured?

Yes.

Would the colonies expanded westward?

That was one of the biggest points of contention.

There are probably hundreds more what if's for this question.

Yes, and many novelists are busy answering them.

[JBigjake]

Could it have stayed British if it was given a dominion status, like Canada? They colonist could control their own area and make their own decisions. This would have also allowed the British to retain economic and military links with the colonies.
This obviously would have been a sensible & reasonable compromise. However, both sides were probably neither sensible or reasonable on these issues, so it would have delayed the inevitable, at best.

[SgtSchultz]

Ultimately the colonies would have asked for independence.

[Bluto11]

i'd be watching the end of the cricket season right now

[Chicago1871]

What if the 13 Colonies were given representation in the British Parliament?
Then I'd be beating you over the head with a crumpet right now. ;)

[nicephoras]

What if the 13 Colonies were given representation in the British Parliament?

Then England would be the 51st state in the Union, and Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales 52-54.

[zverskiy yobar]

For the revolution not to happen you would have to take out the real driving force behind it, and that is the Scotch-Irish in America who were itching for a fight regardless of representation, taxes or settlement issues.most of them hated the English crown as much-if not more-then they hated Irish catholics.The American Elites in the Tidewater and New England simply capitalized on their dislike for the crown once Parliament and the crown started their blunders.
Washington even wrote once that if the Continental army was routed he would flee into the hills of Virginia to fight alongside the Scotch Irish who started this fight and wouldnt stop fighting until it was finished.A hessian commander even stated that it was in truth a "Presbyterian Uprising" as they filled the ranks of the militias and army.
So the real question shouldnt be about parliament.. but more of "What if the scotch irish didnt immigate in mass during the 1700's?"

[JBigjake]

Your post might have more weight if you knew that the proper name is Scots-Irish! I don't know how much that group hated the "English crown", but their distant cousins in Northern Ireland sure love it now! Also, Scotland itself has not revolted against England or Britain in hundreds of years. There were many different political agendas in the colonies; one alone would not have won independence for one or two colonies. GW complemented several different ethnic groups for their support, including the Scots-Irish, the Irish-Catholics & the Germans. I'm sure he also had nice things to say about the Poles & French.
While many Scots-Irish had a huge chip on their shoulder, IMO it was more from their own bad fortune in being forced from land in Ulster where they themselves had been "planted" a century before.

[SgtSchultz]

On a related note, the Colony of New York abstained from signing the Declaration of Independence. The Metrostars still have not recovered.

[YankHibee]

I think Nicephoras answered all of the questions correctly. Give H.T. Dickinson's works a read.

[Anthony]

Harry Turtledove, a former Byzantine historian who now writes alternative history, once co-authored a book with actor Richard Dreyfus on this subject called "The Two Georges". The Two Georges was a painting and refered to a meeting in the alternative universe where George Washington and George III reached an agreement after the First Continential Congress whereby [IIRC] the colonies would be represented on the Privy Council. This becomes the basis for the "North American Union" which becomes a part of a greater British Empire.

Because the American Revolution never occurs, the French Revolution occurs later and fails to topple the Bourbons. The Spanish retain their empire (though they lose the American West to the British in a later war) and eventually unite with France. The Germans never reunify, there is no World War I, and Russia never undergoes its revolution.

The book involves the attempt of an IRA type terrorist organization (the "Sons of Liberty") to steal the painting.

It is interesting and the world believable. Turtledove's problem (as with all his alternative history) is that he tries to fit EVERY major historical figure into the book, in the most contrived and silly ways. Richard Nixon is the country's most sucessful used car saleman. JFK shows up as a lecherous magazine publisher (whose brother is the Catholic archbishop of Boston!).

Martin Luther King is the "Governor General" of the North American Union (capital Victoria, on the south bank of the Potomac Rivier just opposite Georgestown). The Governor General is like the PM in the Commonwealth than the GG is in reality. King is the head of the NAU Tory Party. There also is a Whig Party and an American Independence Party. Politics looks a lot like the UK in the late 19th Century with the Tories being the Conservatives, the Whigs the Liberals, and the AIP the Irish Nationalists.

[Dan Loney]

What if the 13 Colonies were given representation in the British Parliament?Eh. Worked for Ireland.

I'm not a Turtledove fan, but I liked the short story he did where the League of Nations occupied the United States because of racial strife in the South. (I think this was Turtledove, it was in a collection.) In this version, Nixon was a guerrilla leader. Along with Martin Luther King, renamed John Calvin King.

I think what we get instead of one massive North American superstate is untold dozens of little ex-colonial statelets, on the model of South America's former Spanish colonies. They'd each fight little wars of expansion to see who could take over former Indian territories, or have little border spats against Mexico. After that, who knows. Maybe the industrial states become as strong as European powers. Maybe there's ethnic strife in the southern colonies after slavery is abolished. Maybe Massachusetts finally gets sick of Rhode Island and decides to wipe the little ********ers off the map.

[Anthony]

Eh. Worked for Ireland.

The difference is that the majority of the Irish (initially both Catholic and Protestant) wanted home rule. The colonies essentially had home rule, and wanted representation.

I'm not a Turtledove fan, but I liked the short story he did where the League of Nations occupied the United States because of racial strife in the South. (I think this was Turtledove, it was in a collection.) In this version, Nixon was a guerrilla leader. Along with Martin Luther King, renamed John Calvin King.

My problem with Turtledove is his need to find a tortured way to get every historical figure into his alternative history. Sometimes it works (as in The Two Georges where Richard Nixon makes an appearance as a used car salesman) but most of the time it is silly (as in the WorldWar series, where you had things like Mussolini showing up in Missouri to check out a captured alien spacecraft).

I think what we get instead of one massive North American superstate is untold dozens of little ex-colonial statelets, on the model of South America's former Spanish colonies. They'd each fight little wars of expansion to see who could take over former Indian territories, or have little border spats against Mexico. After that, who knows. Maybe the industrial states become as strong as European powers. Maybe there's ethnic strife in the southern colonies after slavery is abolished. Maybe Massachusetts finally gets sick of Rhode Island and decides to wipe the little ********ers off the map.

I disagree in the sense that the British liked federations of colonies, especially where there were enough white colonists to form a "white" government. Think Canada, Australia, South Africa, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nasyland. Even the Albany plan of Union for North America.

ANd the federation model was attempted with the Carribean colonies, leading to the West Indian Federation, of which the University of the West Indies and the West Indian cricket team are survivors of.

[Dan Loney]

Well, Canada has - I'm about to offend our neighbors in Canuckistan - built its self-identity out of being not-United States. I don't see the impetus to drive Ontario and Quebec together, or either with the Western provinces, beyond an unwillingness to be subsumed under the Morlocks to the south.

You might have had federations of some colonies, but a continental superstate, or the hemi-continental states we have now, seem pretty unlikely. The forces driving apart the thirteen colonies, as we saw four score and seven years later, were pretty strong as it was.

[Anthony]

Well, Canada has - I'm about to offend our neighbors in Canuckistan - built its self-identity out of being not-United States. I don't see the impetus to drive Ontario and Quebec together, or either with the Western provinces, beyond an unwillingness to be subsumed under the Morlocks to the south.

In which case, the federation impluse might have been to prevent being subsumed by the French or Spainish colonies or Mexico, etc. And in 1900, Australia was not in any danger of being subsumed by the East Indies, yet they ended up federating.

You might have had federations of some colonies, but a continental superstate, or the hemi-continental states we have now, seem pretty unlikely. The forces driving apart the thirteen colonies, as we saw four score and seven years later, were pretty strong as it was.

But this is also true. However, a North American Union (say on the model of the Albany plan or some later iteration) inside the British Empire would have abolsihed slavery in 1834. You might argue that would have lead to civil war, but a war in which the North (with Canada), backed up by the might of the British Empire, would have ended quickly.

[RichardL]

But this is also true. However, a North American Union (say on the model of the Albany plan or some later iteration) inside the British Empire would have abolsihed slavery in 1834. You might argue that would have lead to civil war, but a war in which the North (with Canada), backed up by the might of the British Empire, would have ended quickly.
On the other hand, would the British empire have existed in the form it took after the US departed, had that event not happened?

Even if it had, it's not as if the entire British (+empire?) army would have sailed over to take part. I'm fairly sure they didn't in the 1770s, when the "threat" was far greater.