A Greater American Revolution

The Sandman

Banned
I have two questions for anyone who feels they can answer:

1. What would be required to have both Canada and the British West Indies (including Florida in this instance) either rebel alongside the 13 colonies or be ceded to them post-war?

2. What would be some long-term effects of American control over those territories?
 
thesandman said:
I have two questions for anyone who feels they can answer:

1. What would be required to have both Canada and the British West Indies (including Florida in this instance) either rebel alongside the 13 colonies or be ceded to them post-war?

2. What would be some long-term effects of American control over those territories?

I can see a more successful US taking Canada perhaps, or being handed it at the peace. Think this was something that was actually suggested to appease the rebels. However less likely to see the US getting their hands on the British WI. Those islands were some of the richest territories in the world so Britain would be unwilling to hand them over. Also the rebels had very little naval power and I doubt if the French would go that far in trying to support them. Furthermore it might not be too popular with some of the southern states as the islands would compete with some of their products.

In the event of the US absorbing all settled English speaking N America this would have considerably increased both their power and probably the ideas that developed into the manifest destiny theme. The remaining Indian states would be even more totally isolated so not even the minimal support they got during the 1812 conflict. Therefore they will probably be conquered and driven off their lands even earlier.

With the Canada's included you might see an even clearer northern supremacy and possibly earlier pressure against slavery - although this would be countered a little if the WI islands were somehow transferred. The conquest of the rest of N America and the clash with Mexico might be speeded up because of greater resources or delayed because settling the Canadian lands take longer. However the US state will generally be stronger and its reach will probably be longer and used earlier. The attempts to establish control over parts of central America might be pushed further and more successfully.

There is one possible exception. The plight of the people of Quebec might cause tension with France if they are forced into a union. This could set up an interesting 2nd conflict with France seeking to restore its position, especially if they have regained Louisiana and are concerned about US expansion towards it. Britain might sit back and allow their opponents to get stuck into a war in North America itself.

Presuming this doesn't happen there are a number of other questions. What happens to the hard line loyalists, who in OTL moved to Canada. [Settlement in southern Africa anyone:)]. Ditto with later British emigration. If there is still tension between Britain and America it could be directed elsewhere. Could be Australia, a stronger, earlier British settlement in Africa or possibly the S American plains - or some combination.

Of course if an exhausted France still collapses into rebellion and Britain is too greatly weakened another potential might be a successful Napoleonic victory in Europe and France having a prolonged period of domination over most of Europe. You might see British refugees - plus anyone else who could reach but might be very awkward for others - fleeing to the US. About 1820 then perhaps the French empire seeks to crush the last outpost of liberty in the western world. Could be a long and bloody conflict.

There is another potential pitfal. Elements of the US population has an almost messianic believe in their superiority over all other people and cultures. With such an overwhelming success in the revolution and no check in 1812 this could be dramatically increased. You could see a Draka like culture arising under those circumstances.:eek:

If the US avoids those fates it will be even more powerful and probably reach at least to the Panama isthmus. This could prompt some unification of Europe to pose a counter to that and/or a Russian superpower.

Steve
 

The Sandman

Banned
This is, of course, assuming that the Union holds together. How much would the addition of Florida and the West Indies throw off the free-slave balance? Especially with the prospect of further Southern expansion.

And, just to throw in another wrinkle, what if the Americans acquire Louisiana in this TL by replacing some of the OTL cash with the cession of Quebec, which might appeal to Napoleon as a post-war redoubt, one already filled with Frenchmen (as opposed to Louisiana, which was minimally populated outside of New Orleans) and in a better position for the French, navally speaking.

Also, would Haiti be allowed to maintain independence? In OTL, I believe a large part of why the Seminoles in Florida were crushed was as an example to any future escaped slaves (who made up a sizeable proportion of Seminole population). Would a larger slaveholding South, now with Caribbean assets, be willing to tolerate a independent, black-led nation?
 
thesandman said:
This is, of course, assuming that the Union holds together. How much would the addition of Florida and the West Indies throw off the free-slave balance? Especially with the prospect of further Southern expansion.

And, just to throw in another wrinkle, what if the Americans acquire Louisiana in this TL by replacing some of the OTL cash with the cession of Quebec, which might appeal to Napoleon as a post-war redoubt, one already filled with Frenchmen (as opposed to Louisiana, which was minimally populated outside of New Orleans) and in a better position for the French, navally speaking.

Also, would Haiti be allowed to maintain independence? In OTL, I believe a large part of why the Seminoles in Florida were crushed was as an example to any future escaped slaves (who made up a sizeable proportion of Seminole population). Would a larger slaveholding South, now with Caribbean assets, be willing to tolerate a independent, black-led nation?

Interesting idea about a Quebec/Louisiana switch. Also the probable fate of Haiti. However not sure that Florida and the islands would have that big an impact on the balance between slave and free territories. Apart from doubting the US would get them, if they did wouldn't they be treated as possessions rather than states? Given their small size and overwhelming black population I can't see them having political impact.

Steve
 
Where do all the Tories go?

This is likely to prolong the war by a few years, as a significant fraction of the population needs to either be exterminated, expelled from the continent, or seriously oppressed. A combination of all three will probably be required.

These birthing pains, combined with the much greater difficulty in managing such a continuing oppression (never mind simply ruling) over such a vast area, are likely to make the new US very unstable. This will be combined with the fact that the American revoloution will be popularly perceived more like the French one, the Terror et al. North America probably ends up severly balkanised, and the republican ideals will probably be severly tarnised by the atrocities which have accompanied them.

All in all, quite a dystopian future for North America. At some point, some parts of what was once the northern US is liable to fall back into the UK sphere of influence (the Tories won't have been purged that well), but all in all the US will probably resemble OTL South America more than OTL North America.

There, a nice little antidote to pro-US fantasies. :rolleyes:
 
The Tories could go to South Africa like in the Draka books? :)

Or perhaps they're pacified somehow--how much bribery might that take?

One reason the sugar islands did not join the Revolution is b/c they feared the rebellious potential of their slaves. As long as slavery existed in the sugar islands (of any of the major powers), it made them very dependent on the metropolis.
 

The Sandman

Banned
Have Britain keep Newfoundland (they did until relatively late in our history anyway) and have the Tories sent there, or have some of them head further west, or simply have the POD encompass the idea that, what with the entirety of Britain's Western Hemisphere possessions having decided to rebel, there are probably fewer Tories to begin with.
 
thesandman said:
Have Britain keep Newfoundland (they did until relatively late in our history anyway) and have the Tories sent there, or have some of them head further west, or simply have the POD encompass the idea that, what with the entirety of Britain's Western Hemisphere possessions having decided to rebel, there are probably fewer Tories to begin with.


Newfoundland might be an optional although only a relatively small proportion of them could probably go there so better to think of somewhere else. [Two of us have suggested southern Africa so far!].

Similarly having a lot less Tories - hate that word as it means something a lot different over here - would mean a much shorter war. It was chiefly the opposition of the loyalists that enabled the fight to go on that long.

Still think it unlikely that the US would get the Caribbean islands however.

Steve
 
Given that it's unlikely the British West Indies would go American (particularly the more distant isles), a more successful US revolution that includes Canada, Florida, maybe the Bahamas, might see the British West Indies receive more immigration. Also, some might return to Britain, and some might head north to frigid Hudson's Bay Colony or Newfoundland (the US might well acquire Upper/Lower Canada, Acadia, and Nova Scotia but not Hudson's Bay or Newfoundland).
 
One reason for the spreading of a war is that if both sides are evenly matched they tend to get people mad at each other on a personal level. You lose your brother, your house, your farm, etc, you hold a grudge.
A rapid American sucess or failure changes the equation radically. Say, the British smallpox attack does not take place and Arnold not merely captures Canada, but holds it. Quebec and Montreal are firmly in American hands, no Indian wars to divide the American forces, more people opportunistically go for the American side, and it pyramids.
By 1778 the British are penned up in the coastal cities and the Americans are besieging them, as in OTL, but much faster and with fewer Loyalists compromised into supporting the British.
The US probably isn't going to get the Caribbean. It's one thing to keep capturing ships for use as privateers, but it's completely another to build a navy that can move that many troops.
If Arnold is the hero of Canada he can wind up running the American army. He had no problem with black troops like Washington did, so he promises freedom to any black slaves who escape from the British controlled cities to the countryside and this gives us a large freedman class in the interior towns.
 
wkwillis said:
If Arnold is the hero of Canada he can wind up running the American army. He had no problem with black troops like Washington did, so he promises freedom to any black slaves who escape from the British controlled cities to the countryside and this gives us a large freedman class in the interior towns.

I think you have it the wrong way round. In OTL it was the British who were willing to offer freedom to slaves who escaped from their Rebel owners.
 

The Sandman

Banned
What I was thinking as far as the West Indies was that they rebel along with the mainland colonies; I would have to agree with you that short of ASBs or a mutiny of the entire Royal Navy, there's probably no way the Americans could take and hold anything in the Caribbean.

Florida, though, could be interesting; historically, the British were in control of it at about this time, and it would therefore be fair game in the war.

So, any ideas about the long term consequences of the US holding, post-ARW, all of its Treaty of Paris territory plus Florida and Canada (New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia; not Newfoundland, as it's worthless and there would be no good way to take it)?

And I'm wondering where Dave Howery is; this thread would be right up his alley.
 
Imajin said:
I don't see why... is being deported to Canada better than being deported to Indian Territory?
No, but the U.S. might see the natives as slightly less hostile, having faced some in both the Revolution and the War of 1812.
 
I think the rebels would have siezed canada pretty easily had it not been for a bad decision by a relatively junior officer. Early in Gen Montgomery's campaign to take montreal he had been told that the french canadiens as well as the native indians that resided around montreal might be friendly so he sent ahead two of his deputies.

Col. Ethan Allen of Fort Ticonderoga fame and the lesser known Maj. Brown. They were to gather whatever friendly forces they could then return to the main american army currently besieging St. Johns. After going ahead and gathering significant forces they learned of the relative weakness of the garrison at montreal. They decided to take the initiative and attack the town themselves. They decided to split their force and attack the town from two sides simultaneously. Maj. Brown headed to the far side of the town with his force while Col. Allen took up his position north of the town. Maj. Brown was to signal the attack by chanting huzzah three times but the call never came.

Gov. Carleton had by now learned of the presence of the rebel force to the north of the town and moved against Allen after a desperate retreat Allen was forced to surrender. Had the attack gone ahead it is a distinct possibility that it could have succeeded. If it had it would have meant the capture of montreal months earlier as well as the capture of the Governor of Canada and the bulk of the force that would have later successfully defend Quebec.

http://www.ctssar.org/monthly_history/y1775september.htm
 
Last edited:
Had Washington had a little more of an imagination he also may have been able to make better use of Arnolds expedition. Had Allens and Browns attack on Montreal been a success I have very little doubt that Canada would have fallen without the need for Arnolds campaign through Maine. So I would suggest someone suggest to Washington the possibility of sending Arnold against Nova Scotia which rightly or wrongly the rebels believed them to be sympathetic.

Now their actually was a short-lived campaign on Nova Scotia known as Eddy's rebellion.

http://www.blupete.com/Hist/NovaScotiaBk2/Part2/Ch12.htm

So instead of a mere handful of rebels sent to foament a rebellion an entire army under a very capable commander is sent against a much weaker force still having not been reinforced. So Fort Cumberland falls pretty quickly and easily. Had the Fort been taken the local population might well have joined or at least supported Arnolds campaign. Had this all happened you would have had the British completely bottled up in Boston and Halifax and completely out of the est of the continent.
 
Now what would be the result of these two brilliant successes. You have a much stronger rebellion both politcally and militarily. That could lead to two possible outcomes the British who had been steadfastly refusing to negotiate with the rebels may have had a change of heart seeing how bad their situation in America had gotten. But you could also have seen a strengthening of the Independence movement in the Continental Congress. So lets say independence in Declared as soon as word reaches Philadelphia that the British have abandoned Boston.

The war goes much better for the Americans as Washingtons army is much better equipt not having to defend the frontier or northern new york.

After the war the changes could have been profound. First you may have a stronger anti-slavery movement with addition of Quebec and Nova Scotia. A wave of abolition went through the colonies after the end of the war. That means that Jefferson's proposal for the government of the western territories which had an article proposing the abolishment of slavery among the trans-appalachian territories. The proposal was voted on by the congress but failed by one vote.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jeffrep1.htm

So by 1800 slavery might just have been a resolved issue. Which also means you have a much more united and possibly aggressive nation no longer debating whether the newly aquired territories be free or slave states.
 
stevep said:
Similarly having a lot less Tories - hate that word as it means something a lot different over here - would mean a much shorter war. It was chiefly the opposition of the loyalists that enabled the fight to go on that long.

Steve
I always call them Loyalists anyway
 
Top