Wars and Conflicts permalink
What if? - American War of Independence
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Saturday, 24th January 2009
What if the American War of Independence had turned into the failed American Rebellion?
What would the short term effects of the rebellion have had on the thirteen colonies?
Would Britain have subsequently still placed such an emphasis on its colonial ambitions in India as it did in the aftermath of the revolution?
What role would have a British controlled America have played in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries? -
Message 2
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 25th January 2009
Benjamin Franklin famously said "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."
It is more than likely, however, that such a fate was not assured. No doubt an example would have been made of some (as with the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745-6) while others would have sought refuge in France and the French colonies (Saint Domingue etc). But the UK authorities would probably have sought to get the overwhelming majority of the patriots (particularly the wealthy ones) on side. An Act of Indemnity would have facilitated this along with royal pardons etc.
As long as the American colonies were not represented by their own MPs at Westminster, however, then it would only have been a matter of time before another rebellion broke out. With each passing decade Americans would have become more numerous and wealthier. Sooner or later the patriot element would have felt emboldened to try again.
It's in the nature of these things, however, that it normally takes a generation to pass before the process starts again. If we take 30 years to represent a generation then 1776-1783 (plus 30 years) takes us to 1806-1813. This period, of course, coincides with that other American patriotic war against the UK - the War of 1812. In a parallel universe, therefore, maybe the War of 1812 would have been the War of American Independence. -
Message 3
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Monday, 26th January 2009
Another question regarding this I forgot to post was what if the seats had been granted to the colonies in Westminster? Would we have had a federal British Empire like some pushed for in the Edwardian era?
-
Message 4
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 26th January 2009
The main American grievance was, in Patrick Henry's words, 'taxation without representation.' For its remaining Imperial history, Britain never again made that same mistake with her remaining white colonies. I reckon that, whatever the outcome of the WAI, the relationship between Britain and British North America would never have been the same.
As for a 'Federal Empire' as an alternate outcome, I doubt it. More like a chartered united dominion a la Canada in 1867. -
Message 5
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Monday, 26th January 2009
Perhaps if the American War of Independence had ended in defeat for the Colonists, Australia as we know it today would not have been in the British Empire. I mentioned that to an Australian and he did not have a clue what I was talking about.
-
Message 6
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 27th January 2009
Another question regarding this I forgot to post was what if the seats had been granted to the colonies in Westminster? Would we have had a federal British Empire like some pushed for in the Edwardian era?Â
The practicalities of administering this, however, would have been tremendous. The sea voyage from North America to Britain alone took weeks. To get an idea of this then there was a somewhat similar situation in 1850 when California became a US state. This was nearly 20 years before the opening of the first transcontinental railroad in 1869. In order to get to Washington elected representatives had either to travel overland by coach and rail (a journey taking weeks). Otherwise there was the possibility of a convoluted journey involving going by ship down the Pacific coast to Panama and then by coach or (after 1855) by train across the isthmus and then by ship again across the Caribbean and up the Atlantic east coast. A third option was to take a ship from California right down to Cape Horn at the tip of South America and then all the way up – again a voyage of weeks.
The Californians in the 1850s, however, were aware that the construction of a transcontinental railway was only a matter of time. If a ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and North America’ had been formed in the 1770s, then this would have been 50 years before the age of mass steam transportation. It just probably wouldn’t have been contemplated.
As WhiteCamry has suggested a Canadian-style federal dominion would have been more likely. Such a proposal was actually put forward as early as the 1754 by Benjamin Franklin and others in the Albany Plan of Union. This was pretty much a blueprint for what would later become the US Constitution. The only major differences being that that Plan of Union envisaged that the American Union would be created by an Act of Parliament and that the holder of the new office of President General would be appointed by the crown.
You can just imagine Barack Obama going to Buckingham Palace to ask Her Majesty for permission to form a government before flying back for the inauguration in Franklin DC. -
Message 7
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Thursday, 29th January 2009
It's worthwhile also to consider what the political geography of a British America would have been like had the Americans lost the Revolutionary War.
For e.g, Napoleon would never have sold the Louisiana Territory to a British America, and that immediately places a huge political barrier between the Eastern colonies of the US and the west. Also it's not likely that Britain would have purchased Alaska, hence Russia would still control that vast area. Then there are the states in the west that are currently in the US but were in Mexico until the US/Mexican war that brought New Mexico, a large chunk of Arizona, and all of southern California into the US.
When you start proposing an alternative history it's necessary, I think, to reconsider all the things that might be altered as a result of the first change you suggest, and the farther away you move, in time, from that initial change, the less predictable the repercussions become.
All the political boundaries that exist today in North and Central America might be modified.
One point: I'm not at all sure that the suggestion made by Vizzer aka U_numbers is necessarily inevitable. Let's not forget that the Canadian colonists remained loyal to the crown, and they lacked representation in the British Parliament despite the length of time required to communicate across the Atlantic. -
Message 8
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 30th January 2009
Napoleon would never have sold the Louisiana Territory to a British America, and that immediately places a huge political barrier between the Eastern colonies of the US and the west.Â
The problem with this, though, is that Louisiana at the time of the War of American Independence wasn’t French territory but had been ceded to the Spanish Empire in 1762 at the conclusion of the Seven Years War.
Without a successful American revolution then would there have been either a French revolution or a Napoleon in the same timeframe? It’s unlikely that France would have regained Louisiana in 1800 if at all.
Let's not forget that the Canadian colonists remained loyal to the crown, and they lacked representation in the British Parliament despite the length of time required to communicate across the Atlantic.Â
That's true. The main difference, however, being that the 13 colonies where much more heavily populated and wealthier than the Canadian colonies. Their population was growing at such a rate that it was only a matter of time before they would start to match the UK in numbers. For example by 1776 they already had as many universities as the UK did. The maritime orientation of the 13 colonies also meant that they had a fundamentally different economic dynamic to the Canadian colonies and were much less dependent on the UK in terms of international trade etc. -
Message 9
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 30th January 2009
Hi Erik,
Re Napoleon Flogging Louisiana.
The American Revolution is considered to be one of the causes of the French revolution.
If there isnt a Rebellion in America, or its quashed before the French can play a part there may not be a French one. Which means Napoleon spends his life as an Artillery officer with the East India Company.
The French, or the Spanish I cant remember when the change over occured are'nt actually doing that much with the Area any way its sparsely occupied by them, mainly trading posts for furs if I remember rightly.
If the western expansion of British America carries on then there may be a defacto purchase because there are simply more Brits on the ground. I am not sure how much money the french/spanish got from Louisiana, it may have been low enough that walking away was the better option. They might not have considered it worth fighting a war they couldnt afford and most likley couldnt win.
If there is a French revolution then the britsh will probably just capture the area, quite probably using local troops. We had away with a lot of the French colonies during the napolionic wars.
Given what we are talking about then I think you end up with a US thats not got California New Mexico and Texas.
But IMO the changes or compromise that would have to make to accomplish that end result are beyond the capacity of the british government of the time to make.
They were not prepared to listen, they were not prepared to compromise and as a result they lost the lot. -
Message 10
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 30th January 2009
With a North American dominion expanding in its own right, Britain would have been hard put to rein it in it from London. Given the American habit of expansion, Louisiana would most certainly have ended up in British North American hands sooner or later no matter who else lay claim to it. Probably so with Spanish Florida; maybe with northern Mexico, too. The Alaska Purchase, questionable - at least until the Klondike Gold rush in 1898 (yes, I know that's in Yukon but the best access routes were through Alaska. Hawaii - probable; the Philippines - questionable - any maritime power welcomes friendly ports of call along trade routes, especially ones which hoist said power's flag. Panama - again, questionable. European Britain didn't need a canal across the isthmus but any major North American power did.
But even if there had been a Federal Dominion of BNA, more of the same Anglo-American problems would have emerged.
* London's outlawing slavery would most certainly have touched off a Southern independence move in the 1830s instead of 30 years later.
* With no international border to divide them, competition between Hudson's Bay farmers & trappers and independents in the Northwest would have boiled to a head, as they nearly did anyway in 1859 in the so-called "Pig War."
* The nature of the federal government would have been no less vigorously debated - would a uniformed, continental Mounted Police have been accepted? For that matter, would BNA have tolerated continuing British taxation without representation? As I mentioned above and elsewhere, one of the understated outcomes of the WAI was that Britain never again arbitrarily taxed her remaining and future white colonies.
* What of a central bank? Would BNA accept British pound notes from the Bank of England? Would it mint its own money, instead? Would it charter its own Dominion bank or, given the actual distrust of such an institution, merely deposit its revenue in local state banks as the US actually did until 1913?
At the risk of steering this thread off-topic, from what little I've read, a French Revolution was bound to erupt sooner or later, thanks to Bourbon misgovernment from the time of Louis XIV. Even Louis XV saw it coming, allegedly. Yes, the WAI drained an already financially strained France but there was already an intellectual ferment afoot. A British victory in NA would have forestalled a FR by thirty years, at most. -
Message 11
Posted by Scarboro (U2806863) on Friday, 30th January 2009
As well as the military and geographical aspects of the discussion, it is worthwhile to look at the impact on world culture.
The 13 colonies and their successors hung together in spite of their differences (including slavery - a huge divisive factor) out of fear of the UK. The Canadian colonies came together only out of fear of the USA. National cultures were created that would not have come together otherwise.
Between Canada and the USA is the philosophical divide of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" versus "Peace, Order and Good Government". Canada was always concerned that too much freedom leads to mob rule and chaos. The USA has always been concerned that too much government leads to abuse of power. The two nations always look at each other and use each other to examine their own behaviour. Gun control and medicare are two obvious examples. It gives each side the ability to experiment with their own idea and with the alternative idea simultaneously.
Within Canada the big cultural experiment started in 1763 whn Britian came up with the idea of French subjects as a part of the British Empire. The concept was one of accommodation and compromise. Although it has had its frustrations over the years, it has lead to a culture which expects to find ways to bridge over differences and adapt to differing lifestyles. When comapred with the reality in many other parts of the world, it has been very successful.
The point is that between Canada, the USA, the UK, and other parts of the British Commonwealth there has been a huge degree of cross-pollination of ideas and philosophies. People and ideas have been able to move between nations easily, and yet the nations have been able to come up with different approaches. By comparing what works and what does not work, we all benefit in a way that never would have worked in a world-wide big British Empire. The desire to do things "the right way" would have strangled all the "other right ways". -
Message 12
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Saturday, 31st January 2009
Perhaps if the American War of Independence had ended in defeat for the Colonists, Australia as we know it today would not have been in the British Empire. I mentioned that to an Australian and he did not have a clue what I was talking aboutÂ
More to do with Sir Joseph Banks and his scientific curiousity
There is no consensus opinion why Australia was colonised. The common perception that it was just to replace transportation of convicts to the American colonies has certain drawbacks
Firstly, transportation to the American colonies was seen in late 18th Century London as something of a failure, too lenient. There were vocal proponents of penitentiaries as a more suitable alternative and the Penitentiary Act was passed (1779) before the outcome of the Revolution There was also a rising tide of abolitionist feeling and the convict transportation system to the American colonies was perceived as a form of 'white slavery' due to convicts being sold to sea captains and then sold again on landing
Then there were problems with the barren Australian landscape - it was far from ideal as a destination, for anyone. The Dutch explorers in the 17th century had been unimpressed and likewise Cook and the naturalist Banks on their 1770 voyage of exploration. Banks thought it was good for nothing, Cook thought it was useless for crops but might possibly be OK for cattle
If convicts were to go anywhere after the Revolution it was to Africa, Lemaine or Das Voltas Bay, and it was only when these sites proved prone to tropical diseases, that Australia was considered. There was initially no plan for repeated penal transportation, it was more a temporary 'fix' until the penitentiary programme evolved
Banks was the patron of the exercise. He had wanted to return to the Pacific with Cook's second voyage, and while he thought little of the agrarian potential of Australian lanscape, he maintained a life long fascination with its flora and fauna -
Message 13
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 31st January 2009
the war of independence was a very lucky stroke
americans - whatever you think about them - have been the most innovative imaginative freedom loving people in history
they forged a nation out of the wilderness by their own efforts - no one owned them - when they went west it wasnt into a land that was already granted to the kings cousin - it was theirs to keep
the people that rose to the top did it by their own efforts - not because they could trace their line back to henry v !!
st -
Message 14
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Saturday, 31st January 2009
stalteriisok,
" when they went west it wasnt into a land that was already granted to the kings cousin - it was theirs to keep"
Yes it was theirs to keep, once they'd tricked, robbed and massacred the Native Americans whose land it actually was.
"freedom loving people"
Unless you happened to be of African origin of course!
All men are created equal, unless your a slave. -
Message 15
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Saturday, 31st January 2009
freedom lovingÂ
That's a feature of post Revolutionary America but the American colonies of the 17th and 18th Centuries were primarily places of bonded labour. Up to 2/3 of white colonists were indentured servants, including convicts, and were frequently harshly treated, beaten, and poorly fed. At least at some stage they could expect to be free but added to this was a slave population -
Message 16
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Sunday, 1st February 2009
If revolution had been averted\defeated then another major difference to the continent, it seems to me anyway, is that there would have been far less European immigration and hence a lower population and a very different America in many ways.
-
Message 17
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
<quote userid=</quote>The problem with this, though, is that Louisiana at the time of the War of American Independence wasn’t French territory but had been ceded to the Spanish Empire in 1762 at the conclusion of the Seven Years War.</quote>
ThatÕs correct, but in 1800, Napoleon got it back under the Treaty of San Ildefonso. For reasons best known to him, Napoleon kept the treaty a secret and left Louisiana under Spanish control until 1803 when he sold it to the US. He was delighted to do so, but as I said, he never would have sold it to a British America, an observation underscored by his comment after the sale. Roughly translated it reads:
ÔÕThis accession of territory guarantees eternally the influence of the United States and I have given England a seafaring competitor that will eventually humble her.*ÕÕ
The Louisiana territory, encompassed todayÕs states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, North and South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. If it had remained in the hands of France, it would probably mean that the US today would consist of the states east of that territory, and the states west of it would belong to who knows? Spain? Canada? Mexico?
There is no doubt that the success of the American Revolution stimulated the French people into staging their own revolution, but I think it would have occurred anyhow.
Reflect: By 1777, long before the America Revolution showed signs of succeeding, the seeds of the French revolution had already taken root and had sprouted a considerable stem. Louis XVI had been ruling as an absolute monarch and had spent money like it was water while the people were persecuted relentlessly by their ÔÕnobleÕÕ masters. Ten years later all the gold in the national treasury was gone, the nation was bankrupt and the people were desperate. The money for LouisÕs extravagances had been squeezed out of the common people. The nobles paid no taxes, lived lavishly, and watched unconcerned as their tenants starved. By 1789 (when the US elected its first president) the oppression had reached the intolerable stage and the people exploded.
It took far less motivation for England to stage a successful revolution against an absolute monarch a little more than a century earlier.
As Scarboro points out (above), despite our similarities and our free interchange of population and ideas, Canadians are a different breed from Americans. We donÕt disavow government as a means of providing people with freedomÉ we welcome it. In general we feel that without a firm govÕt. hand, anarchy could easily result, Also, one must surely realize that if a population doesnÕt help support its government both financially and emotionally, the govÕt will certainly make no effort to help a starving or unhappy people, and thatÕs the kind of govÕt that sows the seeds of revolution. On the other hand, there is a limit to how much government a people can support, and the US is ostensibly trying to determine just how small government can get before it can no longer be effective.
One would hope that the ideal is somewhere in between. -
Message 18
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
Re: Message 17.
Erik,
There is no doubt that the success of the American Revolution stimulated the French people into staging their own revolution, but I think it would have occurred anyhow.
Reflect: By 1777, long before the America Revolution showed signs of succeeding, the seeds of the French revolution had already taken root and had sprouted a considerable stem. Louis XVI had been ruling as an absolute monarch and had spent money like it was water while the people were persecuted relentlessly by their ÔÕnobleÕÕ masters. Ten years later all the gold in the national treasury was gone, the nation was bankrupt and the people were desperate. The money for LouisÕs extravagances had been squeezed out of the common people. The nobles paid no taxes, lived lavishly, and watched unconcerned as their tenants starved. By 1789 (when the US elected its first president) the oppression had reached the intolerable stage and the people exploded.Â
Just this afternoon in my research for why the French lost Canada and India, read in the local library the World History of Larousse Tome III.
Starting, but rereading it again for a thread on a French forum, with Henry IV (Paris vaut bien une messe, over Louis XIII, XIV and XV I saw when I compared the parallel history with England (the UK from 1707, Vizzer?) why they lost Canada/India and even I saw again all the arguments that I used in my thread "Why the British and not the French in the 16th-17th century?".
BTW: Henri IV was the grandfather of Charles II and Maria de Medici was the grandmother as Minette also sometimes mentioned.
Reading in a hurry further (the books can only be consulted in the reading room of the library and I had to catch my wife at 5 AM) I came to the period of Louis XVI and the reasons for the French revolution were raisen nearly exactly as you said. And of course apart of that the Enlightenment was "raging" and there was a start of a "public opinion" even in the presence of the "spions of the government" (I forgot now their nickname) in the "clubs", the "cafés" and the "salons". I intended this afternoon to start a thread on the French forum, something I wanted to do since long, that the French revolution was completely apart from the American revolution, although it can be that they took some examples from it.
And now you said this
.
Warm regards, from your friend,
Paul.
PS. Ross, I have absolutely no time to take part in the discussions on Jiglu. Excuse me for that. -
Message 19
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
Erik Lindsay,
He was delighted to do so, but as I said, he never would have sold it to a British America, an observation underscored by his comment after the sale. Roughly translated it reads:
ÔÕThis accession of territory guarantees eternally the influence of the United States and I have given England a seafaring competitor that will eventually humble her.*ÕÕ
The Louisiana territory, encompassed todayÕs states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, North and South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. If it had remained in the hands of France, it would probably mean that the US today would consist of the states east of that territory, and the states west of it would belong to who knows? Spain? Canada? Mexico?Â
Given the dynamic expansion of British North America - independent or otherwise - the Louisiana territory would sooner or later - say, ten to twenty years max - have been taken by the nearest Anglophone power and in the the same manner as Quebec. Bonaparte needed the money anyway after the disastrous Haiti expedition but he knew a bargain when he saw it - sell it now or lose it later. -
Message 20
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
hi steelers
yes indeed
"once they had robbed the native americans etc"
yes but thats what happens - the romans robbed us britons - then the saxons - then the vikings - then we pinched bits of france - then the mongols pinched HUGE bits of everywhere - incas and aztecs lost bits etc etc
it happens and what matters is what u end up with
gb turned out quite well - and the usa turned out to be a superpower - in fact THE superpower - and fortunately one with a democratic base
although the native americans lost out - maybe it was for the greater cause ??
african americans were treated like garbage for hundreds of years - look what has happened now - i think it looks good now - maybe the suffering has turned a full circle
st -
Message 21
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 8th February 2009
the romans robbed us britons - then the saxons - then the vikingsÂ
don't forget the celts who robbed the britons before the romans -
Message 22
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 8th February 2009
It's the Beaker People I feel sorry for, Celts were only nasty Belgians anyway, they got what was coming to them.
-
Message 23
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Monday, 16th February 2009
vizzer
i thought the celts were the britons ??
i actually blame the scousers who- were probably celts - for the complete lack of stereos in roman britain !!
st -
Message 24
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Tuesday, 17th February 2009
I'm sorry you blame who?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.