d32123
Banned
Unified Italy is the most ridiculous of them all (and one of the worst cliches to boot). Bit too many posters on here seem to be wishing for a return of the bloody Roman Empire or something stupid like that.
DBWI AHC: The thirteen Colonies win!
- Thread starter Prime Minister
- Start date
Unified Italy is the most ridiculous of them all (and one of the worst cliches to boot). Bit too many posters on here seem to be wishing for a return of the bloody Roman Empire or something stupid like that.
d32123
Banned
Most of those countries are total shitholes. I have no doubt America would have gone the same way had the rebels won by some sort of divine intervention.
Um, Mexico! Forgetting one of the most powerful former Spanish colonies, as well as a Decent second/third rate power.
Oh, yeah. My brother's been to Laredo. He says it's a lot better than home.
But I've been reading about the revolt online, and I noticed that this was 50 years before slavery was banned, and the revolutionaries had starkly contrasting ideas about slavery. They would never have worked as a country. Two separate countries, maybe.
But I've been reading about the revolt online, and I noticed that this was 50 years before slavery was banned, and the revolutionaries had starkly contrasting ideas about slavery. They would never have worked as a country. Two separate countries, maybe.
I think it would have split apart early on, into 7-13 nations. Their Articles of Confederation weren't gonna hold them together, and there was no chance of them ever replacing them if they gained independence.
Kaiphranos
Donor
Hey, save the Italy nonsense for another thread, guys. 
Let's see if we can make something of this...
I'll make the horseshoe nail the attack on Quebec City. Instead, General Montgomery pulls back into New York. We'll say the ripples don't affect Washington's capture of Boston and the subsequent New York campaign, and General Burgoyne still proposes his pincer movement along the Hudson. But instead of Gates, Montgomery gets put in charge of the rebel forces in upper New York, and manages to beat Burgoyne somewhere around Albany. (This might be a bit random, but we'll put it down to the ripples--the rebels have a few more troops than they really did, and Montgomery is a better general than Gates.)
There was a rebel delegation in France at the time--actually led by none other than Ben Franklin. He gets word of the victory at Albany, and this convinces Louis XVI that maybe the rebels have a chance, so that declares war on Britain. (I'm not sure what the consequences of this will be in Europe, but let's leave that aside for a while.)
The French army and navy might be able to help the rebels directly, or maybe they just distract the British. In any case, this gives the rebels some breathing space. I think they may reshuffle their command structure a bit--Washington might have been popular with his troops, but he wasn't winning battles. Maybe they kick him upstairs, make him "Minister of War" or something, and put someone else in field command
From there, we need some luck for the rebels/French, but let's say they make it. London is forced to recognize the colonies' independence--maybe they just abandon them to focus on the war in Europe. (Anyone have any thoughts on how that might work out, by the way?)
At this point, the "Continental Congress" somehow has to turn itself into a real government, encompassing thirteen rather diverse colonies. At a guess, we see a power struggle between the radicals, wanting some sort of central state, and moderates wanting the colonies (or states, I guess) to go their separate ways. The balance of power will rest with the Army--usually a sign that a coup is coming. Let's say that Washington ends up as a figurehead for some sort of pan-colonial cabal. I don't see him being a better ruler than he was a general, so the "American Republic" will probably be gone within a decade. Instead, we'll get a northern and a southern federation, centered on Massachusetts and Virginia respectively.
From there, we can go anywhere. If Britain doesn't lose the European War, they'll be in a good position to reassert control somewhere down the line, possibly playing the states off against each other. Otherwise, maybe they fall into the French (!) sphere. Either way, eastern North America is not going to be nearly so prosperous, nor as attractive for immigrants. It will be quite a different world...
Let's see if we can make something of this...
I'll make the horseshoe nail the attack on Quebec City. Instead, General Montgomery pulls back into New York. We'll say the ripples don't affect Washington's capture of Boston and the subsequent New York campaign, and General Burgoyne still proposes his pincer movement along the Hudson. But instead of Gates, Montgomery gets put in charge of the rebel forces in upper New York, and manages to beat Burgoyne somewhere around Albany. (This might be a bit random, but we'll put it down to the ripples--the rebels have a few more troops than they really did, and Montgomery is a better general than Gates.)
There was a rebel delegation in France at the time--actually led by none other than Ben Franklin. He gets word of the victory at Albany, and this convinces Louis XVI that maybe the rebels have a chance, so that declares war on Britain. (I'm not sure what the consequences of this will be in Europe, but let's leave that aside for a while.)
The French army and navy might be able to help the rebels directly, or maybe they just distract the British. In any case, this gives the rebels some breathing space. I think they may reshuffle their command structure a bit--Washington might have been popular with his troops, but he wasn't winning battles. Maybe they kick him upstairs, make him "Minister of War" or something, and put someone else in field command
From there, we need some luck for the rebels/French, but let's say they make it. London is forced to recognize the colonies' independence--maybe they just abandon them to focus on the war in Europe. (Anyone have any thoughts on how that might work out, by the way?)
At this point, the "Continental Congress" somehow has to turn itself into a real government, encompassing thirteen rather diverse colonies. At a guess, we see a power struggle between the radicals, wanting some sort of central state, and moderates wanting the colonies (or states, I guess) to go their separate ways. The balance of power will rest with the Army--usually a sign that a coup is coming. Let's say that Washington ends up as a figurehead for some sort of pan-colonial cabal. I don't see him being a better ruler than he was a general, so the "American Republic" will probably be gone within a decade. Instead, we'll get a northern and a southern federation, centered on Massachusetts and Virginia respectively.
From there, we can go anywhere. If Britain doesn't lose the European War, they'll be in a good position to reassert control somewhere down the line, possibly playing the states off against each other. Otherwise, maybe they fall into the French (!) sphere. Either way, eastern North America is not going to be nearly so prosperous, nor as attractive for immigrants. It will be quite a different world...
Honestly, it's just plain ASB for the rebels themselves to win. If you somehow have, say, France, Spain, and the Dutch combined help out this small rebellion for no real reason other than to be a dick to Britain, there might be a chance that the rebels can consolidate and get a negotiated peace with Britain. This would have so many butterflies though that we can't even keep the discussion to just the colonies. Just the possibilities this has on the French Civil War alone would take several pages of discussion to fully comprehend.
Ben Franklin (hard to believe he went against the crown) incites a war between France and England. France and maybe another country help the revolution along. They succeed in the war and call themselves the Thirteen States of America, and then break up into a bunch of shithole countries, and probably rejoin in a few years like when Quebec tried independence, and things go back to normal, or the colonies join another country altogether.
I guess the only way around one of those two endings is if Franklin himself becomes the prime minister of the TSA. But I'm not convinced he was really involved in this revolt.
I guess the only way around one of those two endings is if Franklin himself becomes the prime minister of the TSA. But I'm not convinced he was really involved in this revolt.
Sadly, that's kinda what happened. Look at the Federation of North America with an unbiased eye.
Slavery wasn't totally illegal until 1967. Interracial marriage between certain groups is still banned in some areas[Georgia, the Carolinas, Mississippi[1].]. Government corruption is a huge problem. Cornwallis[2] has started a number of illegal and unjust wars since the end of the 1940s. Over 20% of the population is still below the poverty line. And racism of all sorts is still very much alive and widespread(except in New England, which has tried to secede for the past 60 years anyway.).
I could list the myriad of things that are still terribly wrong in that country, but it would take many hours to do so.
Thank goodness I live in Canada. Free healthcare, no racism to speak of, and a democracy which actually functions well 99% of the time. And best of all, we're the most diverse and tolerant country in the world! If you folks in Yankeeland can't get your secession, why not just join us? We'd be happy to take you guys in!
@Brady: Do you live in Pennsylvania or New England? While it is true that both of these provinces did indeed ban slavery in 1826, a full 50 years after the revolution, it took until 1865 for Maryland[Maryland, Delaware, and Southern N.J.] to do so, 1871 and 1880 for North and South Missouri, 1891 for Indiana, and, as stated, it wasn't banned in the southeast until 1967.
And Mexico's actually pretty nice too, btw. Ever been to anywhere else in Tejas outside of Laredo? I had a fun time in San Antonio back in '94 and Santa Fe's got some really interesting colonial museums. Of course, it can't quite compare to California or Cascadia but even so, you gotta admit, there are thrills to be had(Arizona's pretty cool as well).
OOC:
[1]Mississippi, here, is Louisiana, and Miss. south of 32*12'N.
[2]Just southwest of OTL Charlotte.
Kaiphranos
Donor
I'm not sure how this is pertinent to the discussion at hand, unless you want to speculate on how an independent North America in the 1770's will deal with some of those problems.
OOC: If everyone doesn't mind, could we avoid that sort of data-dump in the future? It's the sort of thing that gets DBWIs shuffled off to Shared Worlds, and I'd kind of like to see this one avoid that fate.
I'm not sure how this is pertinent to the discussion at hand, unless you want to speculate on how an independent North America in the 1770's will deal with some of those problems.
OOC: If everyone doesn't mind, could we avoid that sort of data-dump in the future? It's the sort of thing that gets DBWIs shuffled off to Shared Worlds, and I'd kind of like to see this one avoid that fate.
IC: Many of the leaders of the rebellion wanted slavery to end eventually.
OOC: Sorry if I textwalled too much. But I do believe that just because Britain might succeed in keeping America British, doesn't mean it'd be a utopia compared to OTL like some might believe. In fact, perhaps it could have turned out exactly the opposite, like I just speculated(think a somewhat less way-out-there Decades of Darkness with a British flair to it).
@Brady: Perhaps the Southerners could be the ones to gain the most control in a post-Rebellion colonial America, as in the scenario I made up. On the other hand, it could also go to New England, which might result in the opposite of what I posited here.
Nah France had financial crisis I don't see them bankrupt themselve to help the rebels but with a pod with the french reforming early it might be possible. Still thoses reform sparked the french civil war I have no doubt that Louis XVI would be too busy crushing unrelly nobles clinging to their privileges then helping a bunch of rebels.
Last edited:
Well if the colonies manage to squeeze independence I´d be curious what their relationship with Mexico would be.
If they don´t remain united (which is highly likely) then Mexico can walk all over them and become a northamerican superstate. I mean just look at how it already encompasses most of the north american sphere.
Who knows maybe instead of Mexico and Britain splitting the french territories as OTL, maybe TTL Mexico buys them from France or invades them even.
Could be a real Mexico wank. Of course OTL is a bit of a Mexico wank, Hawaii, Alaska, Cuba, and even Florida... well Florida until the Brits stepped in and created the republic of Florida, still they got pretty lucky with their spanish war I´d say. (Apart from the filippine fiasco).
Eh, not quite anymore. Mexico did have Alaska, Hawaii and Cuba at one point, but they're long gone now. Cuba is now part of the F.N.A., and Hawaii has been a fully independent country since 1952. Alaska is part of my country(since 1895), and has been booming since the early '60s.
Then there's Calif. and Cascadia.....and who could possibly forget to mention everybody's favorite libertarian state, Nevada[1]?
Las Vegas is a wonderful place to visit if you're into risky ventures and hot ladies, folks. Believe me.
As for France? I can see an earlier Revolution there, too. And it might not be as bloody as the one in 1827, either......[2]
--
OOC:
[1]Now with more Utah.
[2]Here, the French monarchy is not only overthrown, but they are forced to flee to Spanish *Argentina, and many more of their supporters are executed.
Two things not considered yet are the British Army and Navy.
The rebels could never win, because they would never be able to beat the British Navy. It would need the intervention of another powerful navy to drive of the British forces.
Even if the navy was driven off (perhaps by a hurricane?) the number of British troops in the 13 colonies compaired to the size of the rebel army would mean the British would surrender to a smaller force, that didn't have the funds to survive past 1780.
Never going to happen.
The rebels could never win, because they would never be able to beat the British Navy. It would need the intervention of another powerful navy to drive of the British forces.
Even if the navy was driven off (perhaps by a hurricane?) the number of British troops in the 13 colonies compaired to the size of the rebel army would mean the British would surrender to a smaller force, that didn't have the funds to survive past 1780.
Never going to happen.
Never say that word, ever. I mean you know of the Maratha Navy, today the World's second most powerful Navy, was nothing during 1807. Despite that, not only did they win against the Dutch and Portuguese navies but completely annihilated the British naval force in the Indian ocean, something the British thought was not at all possible for an Asian nation.
On the topic, the Rebels were not completely beat by the British and were fighting like guerillas. It was the Americans [1] who took them out and broke their will to fight. The Americans were given protection by the British and the Rebels hated them.
[1] Native Americans
Kaiphranos
Donor
OOC: I see no reason it needs to be either utopian or dystopian, only different. For some reason, I'm imagining the FNA as looking something more like India or even the HRE, with a bunch of states loosely tied together, a lot of them having some sort of "special status." For that matter, maybe this "Kingdom of Canada" is technically part of it as well, and the Canadians just hate to admit it.
Actually, is this a good thing or a bad thing from the point of view of our goal? With an earlier French Civil War tied to the American Rebellion, maybe we see British intervention in France. That could be a real quagmire, and might be justification for letting the colonies go free--France has always been "The Enemy" for Britain, so there might be some rationale in taking this opportunity to deal them a real blow while figuring that the colonies could be dealt with later.
Kaiphranos
Donor
Yeah, but it's not like the rebels are going to get the Maratha to help them out. (Though that'd be a fun idea for a Madhouse [1] Timeline--you'd need the Maratha to modernize a generation or two earlier.)
This actually brings up an interesting point. Since most of the Native States stayed loyal to the Crown, a successful rebellion is not going to deal kindly with them. And the threat of the Natives might actually hold the colonies together for a while--maybe there's a war to push the Natives out of the Ohio Valley? The Northern and Southern colonies might be able to agree on that--one of the rebels' grievances was the restrictions on settling beyond the Appalachians. (Look up the Proclamation of 1763, for instance.)
[1] What we would call an ASB timeline.