WI George Washington was with British?

[iokua]

As the topic says, would the U.S. still be the U.S.? Lets see. Starbucks and coffee bean would be poor due to tea tax. we would all be having scones and crumpets for breakfast instead of waffles. Our country would have bobby's not officer bobs. we would have a prime minister and Queen/King be our ruler. Instead of governers, we'd have dukes. instead of the oh so famous quote" life is like a box of chocolates," it would be, "life is like a chocolate scone" we'd have dudes with gigantic hats instead of the secret service,we wouldn't have a constitution,and finally, instead of the death penalty's lethal injections, we'd have nooses not needles.

[Imajin]

But we had governors before the revolution...

[MrP]

Chocolate scones? Nooses? Gigantic hats? Would Professor Arturo be the regent, by any chance? ;)

*makes a note to buy crumpets*

[Evil Opus]

But we had governors before the revolution... We would have royal governors or something with a similar title. I suppose George Washington would go British sometime during the French & Indian War, and never go Rebel. Without good ol' George, the Rebels get a bad general like Horatio Gates who has none of Washington's knack for not getting destroyed or his astounding luck. The Revolution ends at Saratoga. Why would there be a Secret Service? We'd be ruled by an autocratic monarch, not a president. Most likely America remains a loyal British colony, bowing to the Queen and remembering the failure of Horatio Gates.

[MrP]

What about General Green or the widely-despised Benedict Arnold? He got shirty because he lacked people skills and got shunted to West Point. Remove George, and you Colonials will need good generals to expel us maleficient Brits. Ben Arnold, Hero of the Revolution! :D ;)

Autocratic monarch? Do you know how little power HM has? In theory she can legally dismiss parliament, sell off the RN's ships and do a wealth of other stuff. But, not to be aggressive to HM, I'd like to see her try! ;) Parliament's the big cheese over here, old boy. Lip service is paid to the idea of the monarch as head of state . . . but her real functions are pageantry, heritage, tourism and guarding against possible nuts being elected.

I think the Royals'd do well at the last one, in contrast to the otherwise belligerently Republican nature of the above. Lizzie's suitably regal, and Charles is unafraid of speaking his mind. Our monarch's an anti-tyranny device, not an unchecked supremo. That's what Blair's for. :p

[Evil Opus]

[QUOTE]Our monarch's an anti-tyranny device, not an unchecked supremo. That's what Blair's for. Yes, but not 230 years ago. Without the spread of democracy across the world, monarchy remains more autocratic.

[MrP]

Yes, but not 230 years ago. Without the spread of democracy across the world, monarchy remains more autocratic.

What? During the AWI Parliament was the problem. Ol' George was frequently incapacitated during his reign because of problems with what docs now believe to have been porphyria. We already had a democratic government. The idea that the King was the problem just ain't right, old boy. An intransigent Parliament and touchy movement in the Colonies was responsible. Our monarchy was cut down to size both by Magna Carta and by the ECW.

The King didn't demand increased tax to pay for an army to oppress America. Parliament ordered it because a) American taxes were massively lower than those in Britain, and b) we'd just had a war with the French over the Americas, and felt we needed a larger standing army.

Democracy is bound either to spread to America or there'll be another rebellion. I could easily see the British govt being too stupid to allow it. But that'd just result in another rebellion against "the lack of representation."

[Darkling]

What about General Green or the widely-despised Benedict Arnold? He got shirty because he lacked people skills and got shunted to West Point. Remove George, and you Colonials will need good generals to expel us maleficient Brits. Ben Arnold, Hero of the Revolution! :D ;)

Arnold left the army before Saratoga (Congress wouldn't increase his rank due to a system whereby ranks were handed out on a per colony basis and Connecticut already had their allotment) and Washington convinced him to come back into the fold.

Without Washington Arnold probably leaves for good and somewhere done the lay signs a loyalty oath to his King.

Greene was far to low down the chain before Washington pushed him up and IMO Greene is massively overrated, tactically he wasn’t Washington’s equal, and Washington was no tactical genius himself, and would likely have gotten hammered in some engagement of another and lost the war for public opinion and thus the rebellion would have failed.

The main rivals to Washington were Gates (not as bad as he is made out to be but still less than inspired) and General Charles Lee (who was captured by the British in circumstances which indicate either Washington or Gates gave him up in order to remove a threat to their plans for leadership of the Army and subsequently wrote the British a plan for capturing the colonies and possibly took on the role of a double agent after he was returned to the continentals).

Autocratic monarch? Do you know how little power HM has?

George III did has some power but it was more from his ability to act like a special interest group does in the modern American system (i.e. buying the correct politicians) than any autocratic power.

When Parliament called an end to the AWI George III had to announce it and abide by it (although he did consider abdication, he even wrote the letter, in the end he had to bow to parliaments will).

[JLCook]

For myself, I would be speaking French, and living in The Republic of Louisiana, which I might add stretches from the Mississippi, West to the Pacific, and includes Texas AND California.. In fact, the border with BNA is one of the longest fortified borders in the world, stretching from Hudson's bay to the Gulf of Mexiso.

We also have a significantly LARGER population than does British North America, AND far greater natural resources., something which tends to keep the colonials to our east where they belong.

[stevep]

What? During the AWI Parliament was the problem. Ol' George was frequently incapacitated during his reign because of problems with what docs now believe to have been porphyria. We already had a democratic government. The idea that the King was the problem just ain't right, old boy. An intransigent Parliament and touchy movement in the Colonies was responsible. Our monarchy was cut down to size both by Magna Carta and by the ECW.

The King didn't demand increased tax to pay for an army to oppress America. Parliament ordered it because a) American taxes were massively lower than those in Britain, and b) we'd just had a war with the French over the Americas, and felt we needed a larger standing army.

Democracy is bound either to spread to America or there'll be another rebellion. I could easily see the British govt being too stupid to allow it. But that'd just result in another rebellion against "the lack of representation."

MrP

I think you overestimate Magna Carta but the ECW and then the Glorious Revolution basically broke royal absolutionism in Britain.

I don't think we were after a larger standing army after 1763. Just that I think the colonists had paid nothing towards their defence before then and with the high British debts from the war it was felt they should make some contribution towards future defence.

I agree that there would be the danger of a rebellion at a later stage with the different interests of the two communities. It might be something limited like the Canadian revolts in 1837 or, without the experience of the ARW and the threat posed by an aggressive neighbour to the south could develop into something a lot more serious.

Steve

[Dave Howery]

Without Washington, two things could have happened.... someone else who was fairly good could have taken over (Arnold, Morgan, etc.), or someone bad would be in charge (Gates, Lee). In the former case, the Continentals still would have won, although the course of the war would probably be different. In the latter, we'd all be tea drinking Canadian-types....

[The Mists Of Time]

A couple of things.

1. Parliment didn't tax The Colonies to pay for a standing arms. Britain in winning The French And Indian War ran up HUGE war debts. The people in England were already a lot more heavily taxed than in America, so Britain turned to The Colonies to pay those war debts.

2. We weren't agains paying taxes period. We were agains paying taxes imposed by a government in which we had no representation. We claimed Parliment had no power to tax us in The Colonies because we had no representation in Parliment.

3. The Colonists didn't start out seeking independence. We wanted to remain Brittish and within The Brittish Empire, but we wanted to do it in a way that would respect our rights. This attitude was still fairly widespread
as late as early 1776. Thomas Paine's pamphlet "Common Sense" changed the thinking of a lot of Americans. As late as May 1776 a number of the members of The Continental Congress wanted reconcilliation with England and not independence, and were even afraid of independence.

If George Washington, and perhaps a few others such as Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, remained Brittish and loyalist there might there might not have been an American Revolution and we would have a very different history.

It would have taken a number of "if's." If England had recognized the American Colonists as equals instead of considering us to be beneath them, If George Washington had been given the kind of commission he had hoped for and recognition he deserved in the French And Indian War, If Benjamin Franklin hadn't been publicly shamed in well of Parliment or before the Privy Council, (it is said he entered that day as an Englishman and left an American). Had The Crown made some nobility among The Americans or created a few peerages among The Americans, it might have been a very different story.

England lost her North American Colonies because of how she treated us. Had England, both Parliment and The King, treated us as equal in rights and respect as people in England, had we truly been given homerule, had England taken more of a hands off attitude toward us, it would probably have been a different story.

[Fabilius]

[quote=MrP] Yes, but not 230 years ago. Without the spread of democracy across the world, monarchy remains more autocratic.

Well, at that time Parliaments power was more than the Monarchs. And I think the power of the monarchy would have grown less and less, no matter how things developed in America.
Also I think the French revolution would occurr anyway.

But truly, without the USA as a rolemodel, the birth of democracy would take longer, and take on another form.

[Darkling]

A couple of things.

1. Parliment didn't tax The Colonies to pay for a standing arms. Britain in winning The French And Indian War ran up HUGE war debts. The people in England were already a lot more heavily taxed than in America, so Britain turned to The Colonies to pay those war debts.

The taxes levied were exactly half the cost of the army deployed and used in the defence of America and were explicitly for that purpose.

2. We weren't agains paying taxes period. We were agains paying taxes imposed by a government in which we had no representation. We claimed Parliment had no power to tax us in The Colonies because we had no representation in Parliment.

First it started as Parliament had no right to levy internal taxes, then external taxes for revenue purposes, then trade laws and finally any laws, the proto-rebels were just looking for a fight.


If George Washington had been given the kind of commission he had hoped for and recognition he deserved in the French And Indian War,

Why should Washington get a commission in an army his country wouldn't pay towards the upkeep of?

]If Benjamin Franklin hadn't been publicly shamed in well of Parliment or before the Privy Council, (it is said he entered that day as an Englishman and left an American).

Franklin had already chosen his side by that point, Franklin was pro British until the mob back in the colonies turned against him and threatened his property back there, at that point he jumped on the bandwagon (before that point he publicly started he had no problem with the idea of the British taxing the colonies) and stayed with it all the way.

Had The Crown made some nobility among The Americans or created a few peerages among The Americans, it might have been a very different story.

Indeed, a stronger patronage web was needed however basic law and order also had to be enforced in the colonies without which those affiliated with the government would have been forced onto the defensive just as they were OTL.

England lost her North American Colonies because of how she treated us. Had England, both Parliment and The King, treated us as equal in rights and respect as people in England, had we truly been given homerule, had England taken more of a hands off attitude toward us, it would probably have been a different story.

The colonies already had home rule and Britain was very hands off already, the problem was that Britain had been too hands off and when they finally asked the colonies to share the responsibilities of the Empire they benefited from, many in the colonies decided it was better to break from the mother country and set up their own country.

[Dave Howery]

geez, let's not start up the whole "what was the cause of the ARW" thing again. We have the same problem with this one as with the "what was the cause of the ACW" thing.... too many people try to simplify it into one or two bullet points, when the causes behind both wars were rather complex and long term... neither happened overnight and neither were due to a single issue. This thread is about WI Washington sided with the British rather than the rebels.. deal with that. I think he probably wouldn't have gone to war against his friends and neighbors, and probably would have stayed at Mt. Vernon throughout....

[The Mists Of Time]

This thread is about WI Washington sided with the British rather than the rebels.. deal with that.

Ok, dealing with that, this is my sense of it for what little it may be worth.

Yes there were other very capable American generals. But they weren't Goerge Washington, they didn't have his personality and his leadership style and ability, and they didn't have the kind of almost divine luck he had as if in OTL America winning the Revolution had some sort of Divine Guidance.

My guess is that without Washington the American Army, and with it The American Revolution wouldn't have lasted long.

From everything I've read about George Washington, I just can't see him simply sitting out The Revolution at Mount Vernon, he was the kind who had to be involved.

Washington was one of the very most wealthiest men in America, and he lived as close as anyone in America to the life of an English gentleman, he was as close as we had to nobility, and my guess is The Brittish knew that.
Had Washington sided with the Brittish he would have offered his services to them in some capacity. While he wouldn't have been given a rank or standing like Generals Howe, Burgoine, or Cornwallis, I think The Brittish would have accepted his offer and given him a fairly high and prominant position, and I feel he would have served beyond the call of duty and been properly rewarded for it.

Also, if Washington had sided with The Brittish I'm sure there were others of our Founding Fathers who would have sided with The Brittish as well. I'm not sure which ones or how many of them, but I'm sure some would have.

Bottom line: The American Revolution probably wouldn't have lasted very long and would have failed. England would have continued ruleing her North American Colonies. I'm not sure how it would all have worked out or what the final outcome would have been, My sense is there would have been some reforms and changes come out of The Revolution. Just what or how encompassing those reforms and changes would have been is a good question.

As to Washington personally. I'm sure he would have been rewarded somehow by The Crown and perhaps even by Parliment after The Revolution. He might have become Royal Governor of Virginia, or Minister or some kind of Prime Minister over The North American Colonies. But I'm sure he would still be a well known historical figure of that time.

[Straha]

We'd be loch canada only wi' mair black fowk an' less french.

[MrP]

MrP

I think you overestimate Magna Carta but the ECW and then the Glorious Revolution basically broke royal absolutionism in Britain.

. . .
I agree that there would be the danger of a rebellion at a later stage with the different interests of the two communities. It might be something limited like the Canadian revolts in 1837 or, without the experience of the ARW and the threat posed by an aggressive neighbour to the south could develop into something a lot more serious.

Steve

Re Magna Carta: Aye, quite possibly. I'm no expert on John's or Richard's reigns. :o Perhaps I gave misleading examples to demonstrate the monarchy's impotence. Apologies. :o

Arnold left the army before Saratoga (Congress wouldn't increase his rank due to a system whereby ranks were handed out on a per colony basis and Connecticut already had their allotment) and Washington convinced him to come back into the fold.

I believe the word I'm looking for is "D'oh!" :o

[stevep]

Re Magna Carta: Aye, quite possibly. I'm no expert on John's or Richard's reigns. :o Perhaps I gave misleading examples to demonstrate the monarchy's impotence. Apologies. :o



MrP

Its an example of the king's impotence but the reasons I queried it were:

a) This was a case largely of the power of the nobles against a relatively weak and unpopular king.

b) Later monarchs were able to restore central autocracy. While Parliaments ability to restrict funding by some control over taxes was important it was only really in the 17thC that it came of have lasting power. Before that time we might considerably have slipped back into the sort of position held by the states general in France. [Enlightened despotism was very much the fashion in 18thC Europe and might have played a part in the early reign of George III. While I think by then it was too late for monarchical autocracy in Britain it may have played a point in the development of the crisis, for all Parliament's greater power by then.]

Magna Carta has a symbolic importance in English/British history but I suspect it was more important as a symbol than for the real restrictions imposed on the monarch.:)

Steve

[Wendell]

Mists makes one point here that is essential: George Washington was already British here. The point of this thread would be to make Wasington a Tory, in support of the Crown's cause, and not sympathetic with those wanting reform or Independence.

Washington merely getting his advancement in the British army may not be enough to avoid reform in the Colonies of any sort, but it could avoid the War for Independence.

[Johnnyreb]

The question is, would the Continental Army have won the AWI without Washington? I doubt it, no-one else could have steered them through Valley Forge.
The British would still have to address the problems:-
(a) taxation - Actually most taxes on Americans were quietly withdrawn after the riots in Boston a year before the AWI, but there was a perceived idea they were taxed.
(b) In the wealthy coastal cities there was a glaring wealth gap between rich and poor (no change there, then) a fertile ground for riots and agitators wanting to take advantage - republicanism was sexy just then.
(c) The States governments (ruling in the name of the Crown) were in many cases idle or corrupt. This led to many grievances in back-country people over issues such as transportation, administration of justice and protection from the Indians.
(d) There was an immense demand for more land, which meant pushing west from the mountains. The British government was not keen on this as they had treaties with several Indian nations.

None of these problems were insuperable, except (b) and even this was no worse than the situation in England at the time. Given the fast-rising population, I think there is no doubt some form of Continental Congress would have been set up, under the Crown.

Win or lose the AWI, the Royal Navy was still in charge of the seas, so I doubt that people along the Missisippi would be speaking French. If Napoleon would not sell Louisiana to a British America, then it would just have been taken from him - there was no way he could get more people out there.

The main effect would be a dilution of the British effort in India.

But I can't help thinking there would have been a move for Independence much later, say about 1860.

[tinfoil]

How about, GW serves as an offocer on the Tory colonial militia (being a well-respected 'amateur', he would not have been leading 'regulars' from the home islands, who usually came complete with their own officers).

His inspirational leadership and tactical adequacy would have allowed him to win some victories against rebel armies lacking the resiliency of OTL.

The course of this war goes more poorly for the colonials, and their inability to withstand the redcoats means that their friends in Europe choose NOT to intervene on their behalf. Instead, France finds some other way to goad the English, perhaps threatening the British hold on India and the far east. Might work out better for the French in the long run, but not so good for the 'Philidelphia Rebels'.

The 'American Insurrection' ends around 1779 with the last of the rebels being granted either amnesty/deportation or hung as traitors, depending on the viciousness of the rebellion.

The most loyal Tories, Washington amoung them, are granted peerages in the colonies, so long as they promise to enact severe enough measures to ensure no further rebellion. The resultant taxes and larger garrisons breed more resentment, but now the local bosses DO have representation (in the house of Lords, which still had some influence in the 18th century). This powderkeg builds up until around 1800, when Bonny starts running around Europe, distracting the brits and forcing them to withdraw some of the troops from the 'seventeen colonies'...

[Wendell]

Much of Washington's sucess in our timeline was due to the spy network that he and the Patriots set up. The question could come down to intelligence matters rather than field tactics directly.

[Count Dearborn]

Weren't the British and and French fighting control of India at the time?

[Johnnyreb]

The British & the French were struggling for control of India but the French never managed to get more than a brigade out there, never mind an army. What I had in mind was that, with Britain committing more troops to America, they would not have sufficient strength to overcome the Mahrattas or the Sikhs. In other words, large areas of India would remain independent.
Getting back to America, if the Continental Army withered and the whole AWI thing died down, the big debate must be, are the States to carry on in the same old way as separate entities, or would there be a Congress so as to present a united front to Britain? The answer must be "Yes" because of trade issues (see below) and the obvious personality to head this up would be Washington. So he would become Viceroy or some such.
There is an Indian parallel, namely Clive of India.
The Americans would continue to have trade access to Britain (e.g. pre-AWI they had a valuable tobacco monopoly) and to the British Empire. This was vital, in OTL poor Jay had to go cap in hand to the Brit Parliament for resumption of trade with Britain within 5 years of independence. Because of the continued access to British trade and credit, Americans would get very much more wealthy much quicker than in OTL.
So far as population was concerned, there would have to be an open-door immigration policy as the New World was so big and so rich, and needed the labour. Also, the slave trade would decline more quickly - slavery was made illegal in Britain in 1800 and throughout the Empire by 1830.

[Darkling]

The British & the French were struggling for control of India but the French never managed to get more than a brigade out there, never mind an army. What I had in mind was that, with Britain committing more troops to America, they would not have sufficient strength to overcome the Mahrattas or the Sikhs. In other words, large areas of India would remain independent.

The Company can still hire people both at home and in India.

Getting back to America, if the Continental Army withered and the whole AWI thing died down, the big debate must be, are the States to carry on in the same old way as separate entities, or would there be a Congress so as to present a united front to Britain? The answer must be "Yes" because of trade issues (see below)

Which is exactly why the British will oppose it, the individual colonies shouldn't be setting up trade amongst themselves, they should be trading with Britain and with each other on an equal basis and with everybody else on the terms Britain decides(that is Britain’s opinion at least).

Setting independent trade policy (especially as collective) will not impress Britain.

The Americans would continue to have trade access to Britain (e.g. pre-AWI they had a valuable tobacco monopoly) and to the British Empire. This was vital, in OTL poor Jay had to go cap in hand to the Brit Parliament for resumption of trade with Britain within 5 years of independence. Because of the continued access to British trade and credit, Americans would get very much more wealthy much quicker than in OTL.

This is true, the American colonies would be much better off economically without the disruption of the ARW and the shutting out of the colonies most important markets.

[Verence]

Chocolate scones? Nooses? Gigantic hats? Would Professor Arturo be the regent, by any chance? ;)

*makes a note to buy crumpets* He was the Sheriff of San Fransisco not the Regent wasn't he???

[Johnnyreb]

The States traded among themselves but it never cut the mustard. At the time America had few manufactories and needed capital to develop the raw land. This could only come from London and Edinburgh banks.
A Congress fronted by an internationally respected figure like Washington would have to be accepted. True, many Brits might not have liked it but the fact is it would be little different from the States assemblies (to say nothing of the Counties) which grew up anyway - as a process it was unstoppable & Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc eventually got Dominion status. Again, there is a certain similarity to India where the British not only encouraged a united country, they virtually created it.
Besides, what were the British going to do about it? Declare war on their own colony? At the same time as a life or death struggle with Johnny Frenchman? Not likely.
They would learn to live with it. And everyone would make lots of money, which makes the medicine a lot easier to swallow.
Regarding Arturo, why does a Welsh sheriff have an Italian name? Perhaps this is what America is all about.

[Darkling]

The States traded among themselves but it never cut the mustard. At the time America had few manufactories and needed capital to develop the raw land. This could only come from London and Edinburgh banks.
A Congress fronted by an internationally respected figure like Washington would have to be accepted.

Why?

The colonies needing cash in no way translates to the need for a unifying congress let alone the acceptance of one.

True, many Brits might not have liked it but the fact is it would be little different from the States assemblies (to say nothing of the Counties) which grew up anyway

Yes it would, the colonial governments were subservient to Britain, there is no need for a congress to handle trade and defence because those things would be claimed by Britain in the event of a failed AWI (or one in which the rebels cave short of stating the AWI).

- as a process it was unstoppable & Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc eventually got Dominion status.

Yes, 90 years later at the earliest and note that Newfoundland wasn't automatically part of Canada nor was Rhodesia part of South Africa or New Zealand part of Australia.

Britain may (and most likely will) grant Dominion status at some point but It need not be the unite Dominion of America. it could quite easily be the Dominion of New England, the Dominion of Virginia and so on.

Britain uniting all of the colonies by choice seems very unwise given the size of such a creation.

Again, there is a certain similarity to India where the British not only encouraged a united country, they virtually created it.

India was a settler colony and was again unified somewhat later (when the British government first took over).

Besides, what were the British going to do about it? Declare war on their own colony? At the same time as a life or death struggle with Johnny Frenchman? Not likely.

Declare congress an illegitimate usurpation of the Kings authority, just like they did in OTL and get the royal governor to veto anything coming through the legislature which impinges on Parliaments powers in defence and trade and finally suspend any rebellious legislatures.

They would learn to live with it. And everyone would make lots of money, which makes the medicine a lot easier to swallow.

People could make money either way and that argument applies just as much to the Americans taking their medicine and not ticking off parliament.

[MrP]

He was the Sheriff of San Fransisco not the Regent wasn't he???

IIRC he planned to take over the British Empire as Regent when King Henry was killed or died. Didn't make any sense, of course . . .

[Verence]

IIRC he planned to take over the British Empire as Regent when King Henry was killed or died. Didn't make any sense, of course . . . When you went into detail most episodes of Sliders didn't. I seem to recall an episode in which the Egyptians became the dominant civilisation and all that meant was that there were pyramids in the middle of SF