What if Britian Won the Revolutionary War?

[RalofTyr]

I know this question has been asked to death, but Search isn't working for me (I just get a blank page).

What would American history be like if the British defeated Washington and put down the American Revolution?

[proximefactum]

Originally Posted by RalofTyr

I know this question has been asked to death, but Search isn't working for me (I just get a blank page).

What would American history be like if the British defeated Washington and put down the American Revolution?

Better get good at base-12 mathematics. Quick! What's 344 guineas in Lsd? L361/4/-. Had to use a calculator for that.

Perhaps the various colonies would assert independence at different times. There might be a fractioning of what we now know as the US into regional countries. This development would have stalled later developments like the Civil War.

[NCW]

Originally Posted by proximefactum

Better get good at base-12 mathematics. Quick! What's 344 guineas in Lsd? L361/4/-. Had to use a calculator for that.

Interesting. You seem to be assuming that without a successful American Revolution there won't be a French Revolution and hence no development of the metric system and decimal currencies. If the French decide not to support the Americans in the ARW, you might avoid/delay the French Revolution. While that might slow down the move to decimalise measurement and currencies, I don't think that it would stop it completely.

Alternatively you could be assuming that the lack of an American Revolution will significantly slow down the development of computer systems and prevent their use in accountancy, which was the main driver for the introduction of decimal currency in the UK in 1971.

Cheers,
Nigel.

[Sergio Van Lukenstein]

Read For Want of a Nail. It's a classic that answers (in great detail) this very question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Wan...il_%28novel%29

[I Blame Communism]

Depends to a considerable extent on how and why the revolution was beaten or averted. You don't seem to be thinking of a more sensible and compromising British government before and during the crisis, so let's assume we win reasonably early.

Probably no good things for political development in Britain: the lesson that recalcitrant legislatures can be scared into line by a whiff of grapeshot is not a good one. Britain asserts its rights over the colonies within a mercantilist empire run from London, with the local assemblies being distinctly limited in their mandates. Social development in the various colonies goes pretty crazy as the consequences of things like attempts to enforce the supremacy of the established church and the promises made to slaves set in: Faeelin knows a of stuff about this.

As for the French revolution: America provided a definite example of a large republic that worked, so political discourse may tend more in the direction of a constitutional monarchy. As for the money: the expenditure of the ARW didn't help anything, but the French monarchy had a rotten financial system and had been spending , spending, spending since Louis XIV. In my opinion Necker failed to reform French finance as much because of the opposition he faced from the vested interests of the first and second estates as because of the war spending. It's very difficult to reform a system which concentrates a great deal of power in the hands of a class of people exempt from taxation and hence makes them both able and willing to obstruct any changes. Eventually, the rising and over-taxed middle-classes are going to make their demands for political power heard and thus open the floodgates for the rural masses who resent their deudal obligations, whether or not the state actually runs out of dosh.

It may be later; the financial crisis prompting it may be less severe; and because of this and the lack of American influence it may never turn so radical; but I certainly think there will be some sort of revolution. The Ancien Regime can't carry on as it's going.

And anyway, they might just spend all that money of intervening in the War of the Bavarian Succession instead.

[proximefactum]

Originally Posted by NCW

Interesting. You seem to be assuming that without a successful American Revolution there won't be a French Revolution and hence no development of the metric system and decimal currencies. If the French decide not to support the Americans in the ARW, you might avoid/delay the French Revolution. While that might slow down the move to decimalise measurement and currencies, I don't think that it would stop it completely.

Alternatively you could be assuming that the lack of an American Revolution will significantly slow down the development of computer systems and prevent their use in accountancy, which was the main driver for the introduction of decimal currency in the UK in 1971.

Cheers,
Nigel.

Interesting question. Well, since "WI no ARW?" is a commonly asked topic, I though I'd be a bit tongue-in-cheek and do the math for an exceedingly large sum of money in 1776. In fact, 344 guineas at that time would be about 500,000 pounds today. Lsd works fine for small amounts but is quite cumbersome for large amounts. In fact, early computers had to convert Lsd to pennies and then do the math back out again to get a sum. Hence you're quite right that computers had plenty to do with decimalisation.

I would suspect that Britain would have imposed Lsd on the colonies if no rebellion happened. All British holdings of the time used a non-decimal currency system. India used "rupee, anna, pie" which is not dissimilar to "pounds, shilllings, pence" so far as both were non base-10.

Then again, Canada decimalised in 1826. I suspect that Canada did this because the Americans did so in the 1780s. Perhaps further British colonization of what is now the US would not have resulted in decimalisation. Then again, a British colony got away with it in the early 19th century. I'd say that the possibility for decimal currency in the Americas ATL is still game.

Interesting bit: I was reading a numismatic magazine. The earliest American pennies were the same size as the old pennies. It appears that early Amerian coinage was "compatible" with the old British coin sizes. The only difference was an engraving on the obverse reading "1/100" to remind users of the decimal system. Fascinating.

[Teleology]

The stereotype is that within a generation the 13 colonies would be a bunch of good little englishman again. Personally I think this very unlikely, at least if the Patriots win the civil war against the Tories only to THEN be smashed by the British army.

The Congress controlled the majority of the population during the war, which is part of why Washington's Fabian strategy was successful.

So a British victory will mean you still have a disgruntled population and, based on OTL, it's pretty obvious that grudges don't just evaporate in a few generations.

[Dave Howery]

one thing the Brits are going to have to deal with is the fact that the American colonists are... different. They already have a strong independent streak (mainly due to decades of imperial neglect), are used to low taxes (ditto), are growing rapidly in population due to both births and heavy immigration, and have a dislike of the mercantilism of Britain. Plus, they have a strong desire to expand westwards over the Appalachians. If Britain wins the war, they're going to have to deal with this. How they do so will determine how history goes later...

[Cuāuhtemōc]

The American colonies go the route of Canada in our timeline. They eventually become self-governing dominions within a greater British Empire. Britain would probably be more focused in their holdings in the Americas rather than in Asia or Africa. The Native American tribes in the west would probably get their autonomous dominions as well since a significant amount of tribes supported the British.

[I Blame Communism]

Originally Posted by Teleology

The stereotype is that within a generation the 13 colonies would be a bunch of good little englishman again. Personally I think this very unlikely, at least if the Patriots win the civil war against the Tories only to THEN be smashed by the British army.

It was hardly a case of one and then the other, to my understanding. The South was simmering with small-scale Loyalism right through the earlier part of the war, and the final adventure that ended at Yorktown got its initial success because when the British army turned up to put those loyalists in South Carolina and Georgia into power, they were briefly pretty much re-colonised.

So I'd say: let's not generalise. Each colony had a differant political situation, a differant religious make-up, and a differant role for slavery in society. All of these things will affect their future development.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

It was hardly a case of one and then the other, to my understanding. The South was simmering with small-scale Loyalism right through the earlier part of the war, and the final adventure that ended at Yorktown got its initial success because when the British army turned up to put those loyalists in South Carolina and Georgia into power, they were briefly pretty much re-colonised.

Briefly recolonized is, IMO, an exagerration. Loyalists in both colonies were quickly disillusioned; the colonial legislatures were never reestablished, for instance, and the British army had a habit of confiscating property from everyone. Moreover, the back country in North Carolina (which, given Georgia's low population, is more relevant, IMO), was the soruce of chronic warfare throughout the Revolution.

[Shawn Endresen]

Depends a fair bit on when and how. For example, FWOAN has Burgoyne winning at Saratoga which effectively ends the rebellion in 1777; only a few hundred British lives have been lost, and the Crown and Parliament can laugh it away as a misunderstanding and a few common criminals. "Cornwallis" in GURPS Alternate Earths 2, by contrast, has the rebellion dragging on til 1783; the British have lost a lot of lives and a lot of money, and had another row with the French in the bargain - they are NOT inclined to be conciliatory.

The bottom line is that Chatham is right - Britain's ability to govern its North American colonies by force is already over ~1776. Too much area and a population already half the size of Britain's, the cost in military expenditures to police it is well beyond what Parliament is actually willing to pay. I expect the colonies rebell again during the Great French Messiness (you'll find people who insist that there would have been no French Revolution without the American Revolution, and they're silly. I ran the numbers, and you know how much longer Louis XVI's government could have lasted if it didn't have those particular debts to sink? 1 year. That's all, just one more year. Would have been a very different French Revolution, probably, but more or less on schedule).

What sort of government(s) would have emerged from that second rebellion is, of course, highly debatable.

[Flocculencio]

Something else you need to think about was the fact that there was a lot of sympathy for the Americans in Britain itself. It was generally seen as a wasteful and unnecessary war (up until France got involved).

[RalofTyr]

I understand there would have been a large number of people that hate Britain; what if the British would able to solve that by making concessions if possible or something like mass deportations to other colonies or a mass immigration of loyal supporters with the promise they can have the lands of the losers of the failed American Revolt?

When you're a government that has colonist whom don't wish to be under your control, you can do several things.

1. Give up the colonies if keeping them costs more than they are worth (I'd say, America is worth A LOT considering up and coming industrialization and the need for natural resources).
2. Keep a sizable military force to hold on to the colonies while replacing and or deporting trouble-makers to say, Africa.
3. Kiss colonist-arse and pray they don't rebel again.
4. Sit on your arse and do nothing fallaciously believing that if you beat them once, you can beat them again.

[archaeogeek]

Originally Posted by RalofTyr

I understand there would have been a large number of people that hate Britain; what if the British would able to solve that by making concessions if possible or something like mass deportations to other colonies or a mass immigration of loyal supporters with the promise they can have the lands of the losers of the failed American Revolt?

When you're a government that has colonist whom don't wish to be under your control, you can do several things.

1. Give up the colonies if keeping them costs more than they are worth (I'd say, America is worth A LOT considering up and coming industrialization and the need for natural resources).
2. Keep a sizable military force to hold on to the colonies while replacing and or deporting trouble-makers to say, Africa.
3. Kiss colonist-arse and pray they don't rebel again.
4. Sit on your arse and do nothing fallaciously believing that if you beat them once, you can beat them again.

We have a necromancer!
1. Would happen eventually anyway.
2. Not doable, Britain had no colonies in Africa besides Sierra Leone and slaving outposts, and I don't think dumping white people in malaria-ridden Africa would fly in the rather racist 19th century.
3. Probably not.
4. British complacency is the most likely end result. Complacency is why they got their asses kicked IOTL anyway.