The French Offer the American Revolutionaries No Support What-so-ever. Consequences?
The French Decide Not To Support The American Revolution
- Thread starter Heart of Darkness
- Start date
No support what so ever?
That means No Rochambeau and DeGrasse, but also no private support ( Beaumarchais, Bonvouloir... ) and No Lafayette and no Victoire ( ergo no Kalb ).
In that case, the english definitely crush the rebels. Most of the rebel leaders hang. The best the survivors can hope for his a boer-like trek to the interior. More likely deportation to Australia.
That means No Rochambeau and DeGrasse, but also no private support ( Beaumarchais, Bonvouloir... ) and No Lafayette and no Victoire ( ergo no Kalb ).
In that case, the english definitely crush the rebels. Most of the rebel leaders hang. The best the survivors can hope for his a boer-like trek to the interior. More likely deportation to Australia.
Clarify the French. (And if that isn't the order of the century...) A certain 19-year-old Marquis declines to help, the Crown listens to its Comptroller and refuses all monies, or both? (because both is two unrelated changes, something purists abhor).
Even if we say both, I don't really accept Sobel's rosy picture of the rebellion being put down in two years and Parliament laughing it off as a silly misunderstanding. It doesn't take a majority, just an unreasonable minority, to keep a rebellion going for a long time. That unreasonable minority clearly exists in New England even if the South gives up and lays down its arms. I don't envy the fellows sent to govern the place for the next 40 years; in Boston if nowhere else, seeing that the King's soldiers disappear when they go out drinking will be looked on as a civic duty.
Be that as it may, I expect the colonies will actually be relatively quiet and marginally helpful during the Napoleonic period; the next full-scale revolt will be in 1833 over the Abolition of slavery. The Northern colonies may be in agreement with Parliament on the matter of slavery, but they won't waste the opportunity as they see it; with any luck, they can get the Fenians to rise 4 years early and make a right mess of things north as well. I think the second rebellion will succeed, although the various colonies may or may not be inclined to form a single nation at that point...what seemed vitally necessary in 1783 will be rather less so 50 years later.
What will be interesting is if King William IV, Lord Melbourne et al. grasp the basic objective of the colonies and agree to it. The initial rebellion, and I'm sure the second as well, is not against the monarch or some abstract concept of Britishness but against Parliament. The colonies were seeking or reasserting what later was called Dominion status. The Crown, or some person acting in its name, may be inclined to grant that request with an altogether moderate amount of fuss in 1833.
Even if we say both, I don't really accept Sobel's rosy picture of the rebellion being put down in two years and Parliament laughing it off as a silly misunderstanding. It doesn't take a majority, just an unreasonable minority, to keep a rebellion going for a long time. That unreasonable minority clearly exists in New England even if the South gives up and lays down its arms. I don't envy the fellows sent to govern the place for the next 40 years; in Boston if nowhere else, seeing that the King's soldiers disappear when they go out drinking will be looked on as a civic duty.
Be that as it may, I expect the colonies will actually be relatively quiet and marginally helpful during the Napoleonic period; the next full-scale revolt will be in 1833 over the Abolition of slavery. The Northern colonies may be in agreement with Parliament on the matter of slavery, but they won't waste the opportunity as they see it; with any luck, they can get the Fenians to rise 4 years early and make a right mess of things north as well. I think the second rebellion will succeed, although the various colonies may or may not be inclined to form a single nation at that point...what seemed vitally necessary in 1783 will be rather less so 50 years later.
What will be interesting is if King William IV, Lord Melbourne et al. grasp the basic objective of the colonies and agree to it. The initial rebellion, and I'm sure the second as well, is not against the monarch or some abstract concept of Britishness but against Parliament. The colonies were seeking or reasserting what later was called Dominion status. The Crown, or some person acting in its name, may be inclined to grant that request with an altogether moderate amount of fuss in 1833.
I think that even without French help you would see some kind of Independant North American country come into being. In the 1770-80 and especially 1790-1815 the UK wants a quiet North America, so it can focus of France and the best way to ensure a quiet North America is to creat a small independant state that can a act as a pressure valve, people upset with British rule in Ireland and the rest of North America can go here to escape British Tyranny and the crown would be okay with it because they don't have to deploy thousands of soldiers keeping the radicals down.
Personally I think the reason for the UK's relative quiet 19th century with no real 1848 rising etc. wasn't the comparative wealth (though that is a factor) but the pressure valve that the US provided, and the UK would want that anyway, though on second thoughts it might not be in NorAm, independant Australia earlier anyone??
Personally I think the reason for the UK's relative quiet 19th century with no real 1848 rising etc. wasn't the comparative wealth (though that is a factor) but the pressure valve that the US provided, and the UK would want that anyway, though on second thoughts it might not be in NorAm, independant Australia earlier anyone??
Shawn Endresen said:
Shawn
How certain are you of that. I can see unrest in the south against an end to slavery leading to a new revolution. However why would the northern states support them for a policy that many of them find aberrant? By this time the failed rebellion is 50-60 years in the past and probably remembered as a time of disorder before rule of law was restored. The colonists will be paying some taxes but almost certainly still far less than British citizens so their living standards will be good. Like Canada by about this time, although it took some unrest, they will have considerable self-government.
Don't forget that in the 1812 conflict a lot of the settlers of Upper Canada were former US citizens from New England who had sworn an oath of loyalty in return from land. The vast bulk stayed loyal during the US attacks and this was from the hotbed of the revolution.
I'm not saying there won't be problems. Probably some equivalent of the 1837 type unrest to prompt reforms and more self-government. However while organised groups in the south have a reason to fight, because slavery is so fundamental to their culture, there is no reason the north will follow suit. Even in OTL a lot of the states only joined the rebel cause because they opposed Washington's rejection of their fellow states right to succeed. In this TL there is no such basis for this and the north may be resentful of the disruption and lost revenue the south’s rebellion will cause.
Similarly in the south while the great plantation owners made immense profits from slavery many of the poor white lost out. It was the plantations that effectively drove many poorer whites out of the south as they couldn't compete. There might even be a strong loyalist element emerging because of their opposition to a rebellion led by their planter opponents.
We can't say, after such a period of time, how the population of such a large and diverse region will react to the banning of slavery under those circumstances.
Steve
Question: was 1830 the date Britain abolished slavery in the home isles or in the Empire as a whole? The answer, in part, determines in my mind whether or not I think a new rebellion will break out about that time.
On one side, we are only two generations away from the AR at most. Everyone has grown up listening to tales from their father or grandfather about perfidious albion. That is not too long to nurture a national hatred (look at the Irish!). And abolitionism was not nearly as large a force in New England this early. I don't think the slavery issue would be a major deterent to the northern states supporting the southern states in a rebellion, especially if the post-revolution occupation in the north was as severe as has been suggested. On the other side, however, is that slavery was not as significant to the economy of the south as it later became. The plantation system was much smaller because King Cotton had not yet been crowned. That occurred when Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in the mid-30's and made the processing (de-seeding) of cotton fiber much easier.
So which is the larger factor in 1830, a smoldering hatred or a much smaller plantation aristocracy affected by abolition?
On one side, we are only two generations away from the AR at most. Everyone has grown up listening to tales from their father or grandfather about perfidious albion. That is not too long to nurture a national hatred (look at the Irish!). And abolitionism was not nearly as large a force in New England this early. I don't think the slavery issue would be a major deterent to the northern states supporting the southern states in a rebellion, especially if the post-revolution occupation in the north was as severe as has been suggested. On the other side, however, is that slavery was not as significant to the economy of the south as it later became. The plantation system was much smaller because King Cotton had not yet been crowned. That occurred when Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in the mid-30's and made the processing (de-seeding) of cotton fiber much easier.
So which is the larger factor in 1830, a smoldering hatred or a much smaller plantation aristocracy affected by abolition?
bubblehead said:
Bubblehead
The abolition was across the entire empire. there were few or no slaves in Britain itself. It might have been delayed a little by the fact that the southern planters would have been added to the anti-abolistion ranks, along with the Caribbean planters.
It all depends on how the population will be interpreting the move. I think your falling into the trap of thinking the American revolution was a mass movement with overwhelming support rather than [in OTL a bitter civil war]. In the alternative, with no French support, its crushing would have meant many seeking to make their peace with the victors, hence pro-rebel sentiments would probably becomes pretty rare. True the British would probably be less likely to persecute rebel supports who stayed within the law than the rebels were with loyalists. However as the old saying goes everybody likes a winner. Also the majority throughout the period probably wanted to be left in peace to get along with their lives and a shorter war with the rebels defeated would mean many of them settling down. Unless embittered by the conflict or made overbold by the victory the new authorities, British or colonial, keep tensions alive by being vindictive.
Steve
Please disregard my date for the cotton gin. In reality it was in the early 1790's.
Popular notion is that support for the AR was about 1/3 of the population, and about an equal number were loyalist and "just leave me alone".
By abolishing the slave trade in 1806 I gather you mean transportation of new slaves into the Empire, not routine buying and selling. The US did something similar in the constitution (the effective date was 1808, I believe), but it was not well enforced. How strictly was the British ban enforced?
So, no new slaves imported after 1806, only natural increase. This may have put a crimp in the cotton economy and plantation system before it got too influential. But on the other hand (again!) the effects are felt almost a generation earlier and there are a lot more people who actually fought in the AR still alive. A 25 year old in 1775 is only 55 in 1805. So you have a good percentage of the 1/3 of the population who fought the British around, possibly fomenting another go-round.
How many times did the Scots and the Irish rise up against the British?
Popular notion is that support for the AR was about 1/3 of the population, and about an equal number were loyalist and "just leave me alone".
By abolishing the slave trade in 1806 I gather you mean transportation of new slaves into the Empire, not routine buying and selling. The US did something similar in the constitution (the effective date was 1808, I believe), but it was not well enforced. How strictly was the British ban enforced?
So, no new slaves imported after 1806, only natural increase. This may have put a crimp in the cotton economy and plantation system before it got too influential. But on the other hand (again!) the effects are felt almost a generation earlier and there are a lot more people who actually fought in the AR still alive. A 25 year old in 1775 is only 55 in 1805. So you have a good percentage of the 1/3 of the population who fought the British around, possibly fomenting another go-round.
How many times did the Scots and the Irish rise up against the British?
Last edited by a moderator:
The war lasts another one to three years and the US gains independence on terms pretty much as in OTL.
If the British make the fatal mistake of moving inland with a substantial force, it is destroyed and the government of Lord North collapses.
If they cling to the coasts, basically surrendering all but Georgia, New York City, Newport in Rhode Island and the coast of South Carolina, then the war lingers until public exhaustion brings down the British government.
Bear in mind that the Americans won Saratoga and many lesser battles without French aid, and the British position outside the south was all but lost. By definition holding two cities and needing @15,000 expensive troops to do that was a disaster. Even in the South the battle of King's Mountain had turned the tide and ended all hope of a loyalist militia being able to hold much ground without large contingents of regulars.
If the British make the fatal mistake of moving inland with a substantial force, it is destroyed and the government of Lord North collapses.
If they cling to the coasts, basically surrendering all but Georgia, New York City, Newport in Rhode Island and the coast of South Carolina, then the war lingers until public exhaustion brings down the British government.
Bear in mind that the Americans won Saratoga and many lesser battles without French aid, and the British position outside the south was all but lost. By definition holding two cities and needing @15,000 expensive troops to do that was a disaster. Even in the South the battle of King's Mountain had turned the tide and ended all hope of a loyalist militia being able to hold much ground without large contingents of regulars.
More plausible estimates put a majority for the revolution and 40-45% either against or neutral. Certainly the number of and performence by loyalists would suggest that revolutionaries and neutrals were a very large majority combined.
One question for the board:
France has been screwed out of virtually all the colonies, much of foreign trade, vast income and so forth while Great Britain coasted through a series of wars at little cost in terms of lives or cash while scooping up the gains. Now the British are in a bloody war which is sure to tie down British manpower and resources for years to come.
How do you convince the French to NOT to make a small investment in these troubled waters?
One question for the board:
France has been screwed out of virtually all the colonies, much of foreign trade, vast income and so forth while Great Britain coasted through a series of wars at little cost in terms of lives or cash while scooping up the gains. Now the British are in a bloody war which is sure to tie down British manpower and resources for years to come.
How do you convince the French to NOT to make a small investment in these troubled waters?
The Sandman
Banned
We may have won, but I suspect we would have gotten much less out of it; my impression is that the only reason the British gave the US so much land at the Treaty of Paris was to get out of the war before the French, Spanish or Dutch could seize anything important. Remember, about the only thing that our allies got out of the war was a heaping helping of debt and the return of Florida to Spain.
Think you radically underestimate the attachment of the poor white Southerner to slavery, even under a British administration. He has never been to the North and so does not know that laborers there make twice what he does; he has even less ability to compare himself to the British commoner. What he knows is that it is normal and "universal" for the wealthy landowners to treat the lowest classes as despicable vermin, and that slavery is what keeps HIM from being the lowest classes. Widespread popular support for the uprising in '33 will be very easy to come by. The Boers packed up and moved inland, very nearly to a man; the Southron does not have that option.
And the resentment in the North will still be there because, if anything, the basis for their complaints will be growing. Taxes and levies will be increasing to pay for two more wars (the absolute amount of taxation barely matters at all). The position of Parliament remains that the purpose of a colony is to produce more money than is spent on it so that money can be used to enrich Britain, and that the Northerners are colonies. How is it possible for a person born in "the colonies" not to greet this with bitterness and resentment? The most educated among them can look around themselves, look at reports on Bengal and Awadh, and draw too many parallels. It took the Fenian uprisings in OTL 1837 before Parliament grasped this simple point; if the American Rebellion had failed, they would be that much further behind the learning curve.
And the resentment in the North will still be there because, if anything, the basis for their complaints will be growing. Taxes and levies will be increasing to pay for two more wars (the absolute amount of taxation barely matters at all). The position of Parliament remains that the purpose of a colony is to produce more money than is spent on it so that money can be used to enrich Britain, and that the Northerners are colonies. How is it possible for a person born in "the colonies" not to greet this with bitterness and resentment? The most educated among them can look around themselves, look at reports on Bengal and Awadh, and draw too many parallels. It took the Fenian uprisings in OTL 1837 before Parliament grasped this simple point; if the American Rebellion had failed, they would be that much further behind the learning curve.
Without the French, the rebels might have still won... but it would have been against big odds. The French supplied weapons and supplies (which the rebels might have been able to make up on their own) and cash (which the rebels and Continental Congress had little funding of their own). The revolution might not have been out and out beaten, but it had a good chance of going broke....