WI: American Revolution crushed?

ThePest179

Banned
So what would be a plausible POD to have the American Revolution crushed, and what would the wide ranging repercussions be? What would be the future of the Colonies, and the British Empire in general? What about the possible butterflies on the rest of the world?
 
You know, in this scenerio, I always had this image of Thomas Jefferson fleeing to France and becoming influential in the eventual revolution over thede (yes, I am aware that this presupposes a French Revolution even in an ATL where the American Revolution failed, which is in no way certain. But best with me!)
 
I can only think of a few different scenerios which may have doomed the Patriot cause.

1.) Bunker Hill - Instead of landing at Charlestown and taking Breed's Hill head on like they did, what if the British landed at the neck of Charlestown and cut off the Patriots, trapping them on the Charleston peninsula. It would eliminate a significant portion of the Patriot forces in Boston and would not give the Patriots a moral victory in that they withstood two British assaults on their position and would have survived the third if they would have had the ammunition.

2.) Ticonderoga - If somehow the British could hold off the Patriots or keep the Patriots from capturing the cannon. Maybe destroying the cannon before surrendering to the Patriots. No cannon, the Patriots cannot threaten Boston.

Also a defense of Ticonderoga will make the Canadian invasion in the fall of 1775 that much harder.

One and two together may be enough. Britain throws a peace offering to other colonies. There is no DOI, second Continental Congress agrees to British offer.

3.) Capture Washington's army on Long Island or Manhattan - Prevent the retreat of the Continental Army in the summer/fall of 1776. Without the main Continental Army, there is no Revolution. Washington's greatest victories are escaping defeats to fight another day.

4.) Instead of going to Philadelphia, Howe goes up the Hudson to link up with Burgoyne. There is no defeat at Saratoga or the Patriot offensive at Germantown which impress the French. The French sit on the sidelines for another year. The Hudson Valley is captured in 1777. The British subdue New England in 1778.
Capture Philadelphia in 1779.
Conquer the South in 1780 and 781.

Long term effects ...... who knows. North is eventually pacified. South may be stirred up over slavery and expansion.
America would still expand into the Northwest and Southwest. Part of the peace plan would be this. Britain would forget about the Indian allies as the Americans would demand and receive the permission to settle the West, as long as it was American troops guarding the frontier.

The Americans would come into conflict with the French and Spanish/Mexicans. Americans might take Louisiana from either France or Spain during the Napoleon wars.

Eventually, all of America (BNA) would be a dominion like Canada. WWI and WWII would be different with greater American participation from the get go. North America would industrialize like OTL. Essentially, it would be one big Canada from sea to shining sea.
 

ThePest179

Banned
Presuming of course, everything else goes OTL. I think that there would be big butterflies here, considering what this means (aka possible Brit wank).
 
So what would be a plausible POD to have the American Revolution crushed, and what would the wide ranging repercussions be? What would be the future of the Colonies, and the British Empire in general? What about the possible butterflies on the rest of the world?

Well, there's two possible ways it could go. I'll just start with the bad one; something that might end up like a less extreme version of the scenario found in Mumby's "Centuries of Shadow"; abolitionism takes much longer to really take off, and many of the Southern planters, wanting to retain their profits, firmly entrench themselves in the system, sometimes currying plenty of favors with London, ensuring that very little gets done for a long time to come; it may even take until the early 20th Century to eliminate slavery. And even then, race relations may remain poisoned, or at least strained, until the present day, particularly if the *South takes the Rhodesian route. :(

On the other hand, the Colonies may, possibly, end up more along the lines of the C.N.A. from Sobel's classic "For Want of a Nail" timeline.....which is to say, basically somewhat like a giant *Canada, of sorts. This is actually harder to pull off, I'd suspect, but the results could be quite satisfying, as well. :)
 
Eventually, all of America (BNA) would be a dominion like Canada. WWI and WWII would be different with greater American participation from the get go. North America would industrialize like OTL. Essentially, it would be one big Canada from sea to shining sea.

You wouldn't necessarily see one big confederation of all the British colonies in North America though. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the confederation of Canada at least partly in response to that big independent English-speaking territory-hungry nation to the south?
 
You wouldn't necessarily see one big confederation of all the British colonies in North America though. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the confederation of Canada at least partly in response to that big independent English-speaking territory-hungry nation to the south?

Actually, you might have a point. North America might be Balkanised into several Dominions ...New England, Quebec, New York, Texas, California, Pacific Northwest, .......

I was only thinking of one large Canadian like Dominion early on and allowed to expand the entire continent. It would become a power to be reckoned with,

With many of the same settlement patterns. Are there really that big of differences between Canada and USA now? Outside of Quebec, what is the differnence between Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo? How about between Windsor and Detroit? Out West, is there that big of a difference between border towns in North Dakota and Manitoba, they both grow a lot of wheat. It would be cool to have a large Dominion in North America somewhat still tied to the mother country. But realistically, it would probably be smaller Dominions that chunk off BNA.
 
You wouldn't necessarily see one big confederation of all the British colonies in North America though. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the confederation of Canada at least partly in response to that big independent English-speaking territory-hungry nation to the south?

Partly so, yes. However, though, there were also some perhaps not terribly large, but still important, differences between Upper and Lower Canada versus the 13 colonies; for one, Lower Canada had a rather large(in terms of versus the total population) French-speaking population, which none of the 13 colonies had(the Huguenots did have a not-insignificant presence in some areas, but most of them had assimilated into the Anglo culture by this time).
 
This would be a fairly interesting timeline. Having the whole of North America subject to the British Crown. Though for a proper Britwank you'd need to federalise, not give home rule.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
This would be a fairly interesting timeline. Having the whole of North America subject to the British Crown. Though for a proper Britwank you'd need to federalise, not give home rule.

I now have this image of the Federal United Kingdom, where the capital territory is "London", there's also "Britain", "Australia", five or six different provinces in North America, and perhaps Malaya and South Africa on top of that. (I'm assuming no India, or at any rate less OF India.)
 
I now have this image of the Federal United Kingdom, where the capital territory is "London", there's also "Britain", "Australia", five or six different provinces in North America, and perhaps Malaya and South Africa on top of that. (I'm assuming no India, or at any rate less OF India.)

I'd go with separate Ireland and Scotland. They might as well federalise on nationalist lines at home to. Be less reason for independence movements that way.

edit: I'd also say that with a federalisation of India it'd be even more of a Britwank. Of course it'd have to be broken into a lot of provinces to get parity with the rest of the Empire but then his/her majesty would end up with a population that rivals china.
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
I'd go with separate Ireland and Scotland. They might as well federalise on nationalist lines at home to. Be less reason for independence movements that way.

edit: I'd also say that with a federalisation of India it'd be even more of a Britwank. Of course it'd have to be broken into a lot of provinces to get parity with the rest of the Empire but then his/her majesty would end up with a population that rivals china.

I was mainly sticking to places with Anglo populations - Malaya being the exception. If it were possible to add India, and perhaps even slices of central Africa...
The main question is how to ensure that they're "British first" (or at all).

Hmm. Here's a good question. How long might it take to render the UK sufficiently not-racist that the royal family can incorporate non-European marriages (even at the periphery)?
OTL the Brits went for abolition early, which suggests there's a potential anti-racial driver there.
Even just being clearly not-racist (and hard on blatant racism - a few crackdowns on planters might do that) would help an integrated Empire.
 
I was mainly sticking to places with Anglo populations - Malaya being the exception. If it were possible to add India, and perhaps even slices of central Africa...
The main question is how to ensure that they're "British first" (or at all).

Hmm. Here's a good question. How long might it take to render the UK sufficiently not-racist that the royal family can incorporate non-European marriages (even at the periphery)?
OTL the Brits went for abolition early, which suggests there's a potential anti-racial driver there.
Even just being clearly not-racist (and hard on blatant racism - a few crackdowns on planters might do that) would help an integrated Empire.

Opposing slavery definitely isn't non-racism. Britain was a pretty racist society up until the 1980s. Certainly racist enough to not accept a major role for non-whites in the Empire.
 
I don't think it would result in a giant *Canada situation. While the 13 Colonies would still retain ties to the Crown, unless Britain divides their American colonies into separate dominions its a matter of time before they overtake Britain in population. Without the 13 Colonies leaving to form the U.S., a lot of migration to Canada is butterflied away in favor of the colonies to the south. Without a U.S. there would be less immigration from Europe so I doubt it'd be a wash, but the net result is still less migration to *Canada and more to the American colonies.

OTL U.S. had about 38 million people in 1870, the UK had that same population in 1900. With butterflies those numbers wouldn't be the same but as the North American Dominion(s) reach the same or similar levels of wealth and population as the UK something is going to have to give.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Opposing slavery definitely isn't non-racism. Britain was a pretty racist society up until the 1980s. Certainly racist enough to not accept a major role for non-whites in the Empire.
I'd argue it was comparatively not-racist for the time in the late 1700s/early 1800s, and that opposing slavery is better than not opposing slavery.
 
Well, there's two possible ways it could go. I'll just start with the bad one; something that might end up like a less extreme version of the scenario found in Mumby's "Centuries of Shadow"; abolitionism takes much longer to really take off, and many of the Southern planters, wanting to retain their profits, firmly entrench themselves in the system, sometimes currying plenty of favors with London, ensuring that very little gets done for a long time to come; it may even take until the early 20th Century to eliminate slavery. And even then, race relations may remain poisoned, or at least strained, until the present day, particularly if the *South takes the Rhodesian route. :(

On the other hand, the Colonies may, possibly, end up more along the lines of the C.N.A. from Sobel's classic "For Want of a Nail" timeline.....which is to say, basically somewhat like a giant *Canada, of sorts. This is actually harder to pull off, I'd suspect, but the results could be quite satisfying, as well. :)

Wasn't a large part of the reason for the AR the fact that the central government in London wasn't taking much notice of the colonials' interests? Even if the South did oppose abolitionism, I'm not sure that London would take much interest.

Also, slavery wasn't as well-entrenched in the 1780s as it was by the 1860s. What really set the South's reliance on their Peculiar Institution was the invention of the cotton gin, which lead to a greater demand for cotton goods and hence greater economic, political and social influence for owners of cotton plantations.




On a different not, I wonder what effect a British victory would have on that country's expansion elsewhere? For example, would India become such an important part of the Empire if pretty much the whole of the North American Atlantic littoral was still in British hands?
 

Faeelin

Banned
4.) Instead of going to Philadelphia, Howe goes up the Hudson to link up with Burgoyne. There is no defeat at Saratoga or the Patriot offensive at Germantown which impress the French. The French sit on the sidelines for another year. The Hudson Valley is captured in 1777. The British subdue New England in 1778. .

I actually think that this would be a disaster. Americans showed consistently throughout the war that they could stand their ground against the British, particularly if entrenched. And Burgoyne will have no way to dislodge Washington...
 

chrislondon

Banned
Hmm. Here's a good question. How long might it take to render the UK sufficiently not-racist that the royal family can incorporate non-European marriages (even at the periphery)?.

Both Edward III and George III had wives of mixed race ancestry. The first predates 'scientific' racism and the second it's rise to prominence.
 
Both Edward III and George III had wives of mixed race ancestry. The first predates 'scientific' racism and the second it's rise to prominence.

Well the POD is during George III reign. Is it possible to butterfly away scientific racism?
 
Top