Without a successful American revolution and a Monroe Doctrine, you probably wouldn’t have had a series of revolutions in Latin America. Britain probably would have offered support to Spain and Portugal to help them retain nominal political control over their American empires in exchange for British commercial access. So the British Empire in America would stretch to the Pacific but it wouldn’t include California or Texas, which would still be part of New Spain.
Actually… the British supported the Monroe doctrine heavily, and were implicitly willing to back it with their blood, treasure, and arms. Whiel it’s not neccessarily going to work the same, it’s hardly unimaginable that Britain would work to undercut Spain (which, let’s face it, is the biggest target) in the same way.
Years ago I read a quote from a famous historian/economist who said that if the American colonies had remained part of the Empire, by end of the 19th century, the capital of the Empire would be in North America, but darned if I can find the quote now.
“The people on the other side of the water are afraid lest their distance from the seat of government might expose them to many oppressions; but their representatives in parliament, of which the number ought from the first to be considerable, would easily be able to protect them from all oppression. The distance could not much weaken the dependency of the representative upon the constituent, and the former would still feel that he owed his seat in parliament, and all the consequence which he derived from it, to the good-will of the latter. It would be the interest of the former, therefore, to cultivate that good-will, by complaining, with all the authority of a member of the legislature, of every outrage which any civil or military officer might be guilty of in those remote parts of the empire. The distance of America from the seat of government, besides, the natives of that country might flatter themselves, with some appearance of reason too, would not be of very long continuance. Such has hitherto been the rapid progress of that country in wealth, population, and improvement, that in the course of little more than a century, perhaps, the produce of the American might exceed that of the British taxation. The seat of the empire would then naturally remove itself to that part of the empire which contributed most to the general defence and support of the whole.”
The War of 1812 doesn’t happen. Andrew Jackson doesn’t rise to fame, and is just known around town as that crazy bastard who’s always shooting out his window.
Britain was a fundamentally conservative power in its foreign policy. If people in Latin America achieved their independence, Britain was willing to accept the situation and adapt to it. But if Spain looked like if was able to maintain viable control then Britain wouldn’t have been trying to change the status quo. Pretty much the same policy they’d adopt in regards to the Ottoman Empire a few decades later - prop up the weak regime and use that support as an opening to gain economic influence.
I think that this thread underestimates the burr up his ass that Samuel Adams and his ilk had. Britain could have given representation. The Intolerable Acts would have passed over American votes. The uprising would have just used that as an excuse as to why Parliament didn’t care about the colonies, etc.
The Revolution would have continued as scheduled. No taxation without representation was a nice slogan, but we could have done the same without it.
This. No one was saying, “no taxation without representation” and meaning “we’re OK with the taxation, but pissed off about our level of representation”. People didn’t want to pay the taxes, and “bodies we aren’t represented in don’t have the authority to levy taxes on us” was the specific legal theory they went with as to why they should be repealed (as opposed to just saying “we don’t want to pay them”).
Don’t forget how divided the people of the colonies were at the time – roughly 1/3 Patriot, 1/3 Loyalist, 1/3 neutral/indifferent, as I recall. Revolution was by no means inevitable.
Or the weight of the Americans in Parliament in the 1830s resulting in slavery not being outlawed in the first place, leading to decades more of slavery in the other colonies.
As I’ve already said, I disagree. It was the lack of representation that was the real issue not the taxation. The consensus would have been “we’re OK with the taxation, as long as we get a say in our representation”. As I pointed out, the taxes were actually quite low - lower than what people were paying in England without protest.
All true, except that it didn’t help Spain in actual history, either. The U.S. didn’t have the firepower to do jack to the Spanish until the Civil War. My point is that the Monroe doctrine was little more than a vague threat backed up by vague possibility fo British intervention.
But the alternative “America doesn’t become independent” history would arguably be tilted in Spain’s favor. First, there would be no American Revolution to serve as an inspiration to Latin American revolutionaries. Second, there would arguably be no French Revolution, hence no Napoleon, and therefore no French invasion of Spain in 1808.
But there might be some Latin American colonials looking north and saying to the Viceroy, “Hey, why can’t we have representation in the Cortes in Madrid?!” “Well, what do you care, the Cortes doesn’t actually do anything, does it?!” “Well, maybe it should!” Hard to stop that kind of talk once it starts. Especially if the creoles start writing their relatives in Spain.
Well, representation at Westminster would have provided another way to preserve the American way of life – i.e., whatever His Majesty’s Government wants to do in the direction of the not unreasonable goal of integrating America more thoroughly and regularly into the Empire, American MP’s will be there to explain why this or that particular idea simply will not do.