How do I keep France out of the ARW?

[SirCliveWolfe]

Very difficult, unless France is already in revolution (in which case it WOULD likely intervene officially) or civil war.

Interesting, perhaps the best way to "keep France out" would be an earlier French revolution which means that while the do "officially intervene" in reality they can not spare any funds, let alone armed forces?

 

[TFSmith121]

I am always amused that the loss of millions of subjects, the eastern seaboard, and the return of Minorca to Spain are not in France's interest.

Yeah, there's a lot of this...

Perhaps the French should have tried some reform prior the the Estates General?

 

[TFSmith121]

France gave back several of the Lesser Antilles at the negotiating table. The only island they annexed was Tobago.

Hence the point - apparently the decision makers in France were content with what they got; if not, one would think they would have pushed for more...

Best,

 

[cracou]

Well, England can allow colonies to send representatives....

It would solve a lot of things, no?

 

[TFSmith121]

Well, England can allow colonies to send representatives....

It would solve a lot of things, no?

Until the point that the North American colonies/dominions/etc. have a greater population than the UK, at which point Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and (presumably) the heptarchy become 10 states, and Parliament moves to Chicago.

Best,

 

[edgeworthy]

Have Louis XV live another ten years.

Iirc he refused to support Spain in the 1770 Falkland Islands dispute, so he might take the same line over the ARW.

Alternatively have Louis XVI die young, so that his brother (OTL's Louis XVIII) is king. By most accounts he was the smartest of the brothers, and might have listened to Turgot's argument that the first gunshot would drive the state into bankruptcy.

Or perhaps have Louis Ferdinand, Louis XVI's father, live longer?
By all accounts a sedate, educated, studious, cultured, deeply religious man.
He would probably have agreed with Turgot.

Although the French meddling in the 13 Colonies probably started much earlier than is usually thought, afterall has it ever been explained exactly where the siege artillery the British found, and sucessfully destroyed, at Concord came from?

 

[Matteo]

Until the point that the North American colonies/dominions/etc. have a greater population than the UK, at which point Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and (presumably) the heptarchy become 10 states, and Parliament moves to Chicago.

Best,

Which of course would never happen without Britain being a democracy. Which it was very far away from being since political power in Britain in the late 18th and early 19th century was tightly held by a small oligarchy of aristocrats and financiers.

There was taxation and representation but representation was a mockery.

And besides, Britain and the 13 colonies were drifting apart. Britain's interests were becoming more concentrated on Asia. It was the time of the conquest of India that was to be followed by the opium wars against China.

 

[TFSmith121]

Which of course would never happen without Britain being a democracy. Which it was very far away from being since political power in Britain in the late 18th and early 19th century was tightly held by a small oligarchy of aristocrats and financiers. There was taxation and representation but representation was a mockery. And besides, Britain and the 13 colonies were drifting apart. Britain's interests were becoming more concentrated on Asia. It was the time of the conquest of India that was to be followed by the opium wars against China.

Well, yes, which is a large part of why the British were always a day late and a dollar short in their various peace offers in 1775-81; if they'd made the same offer(s) in 1774, they probably would have been accepted ... But that would have required a different mindset in London.

Best,

 

[Matteo]

Well, yes, which is a large part of why the British were always a day late and a dollar short in their various peace offers in 1775-81; if they'd made the same offer(s) in 1774, they probably would have been accepted ... But that would have required a different mindset in London.

Best,

In psychological matters, paying the price is often part of the healing process.

And there is also an advantage in fighting hard : to deter other colonies to try getting their independance too.

 

[Just a Rube]

It's certainly doable to keep France out. It's extremely hard to keep France out and have the colonists still win independence (which seems to be what you are asking for) for two reasons:

1) The obvious one that without France, the US is going to find it tough to win.
2) Once the US manages to start look like they are winning (obviously needed for the US to win), it becomes increasingly difficult for France to avoid the temptation of joining in to pile on.

Really, the only way I can see it happening is if the colonists win so fast that the French don't have time to intervene, which is a very tall order (especially since independence wasn't a goal until mid-1776, so you can't have e.g. a storm prevent the evacuation of Boston and force its surrender with British garrison intact, which is probably the easiest "quick" major victory).

That said, I'm not sure no French intervention will make a post-war US crack-up more likely; indeed, a wildly successful intervention (such that the US gets Canada and Bermuda, which were basically the maximum gains the French offered the Americans in the event of a complete victory) might lead to the US becoming even more unstable (in particular, Catholic, French-speaking Quebec with its claims on the Old Northwest is going to present a massive political problem for Protestant, English-speaking Americans, especially since the absence of British Canada means that a unifying threat is removed).

Indeed, that would probably be an easier scenario for a broken United States: a massive Franco-Spanish naval victory over the British allows the planned invasion of the British Isles to go forward, and as a result, the Allies get to essentially dictate terms to an occupied London. The British are essentially removed from North America and the US finds itself with many states with divergent interests and no real unifying features (with even religion, culture and language varying between Quebec and the rest).

 

[TFSmith121]

In psychological matters, paying the price is often part of the healing process.

And there is also an advantage in fighting hard : to deter other colonies to try getting their independance too.

Well except for the French Canadians, it's unclear that any other colonies really would have compared to the Americans in the 1770s.

Best,

 

[Matteo]

Well except for the French Canadians, it's unclear that any other colonies really would have compared to the Americans in the 1770s.

Best,

Sure. The majority of the french canadians prefered being ruled by Britain than by the settlers of the 13 colonies with whom the y had directly been in latent or open conflict for almost a century.

 

[TFSmith121]

Sure. The majority of the french canadians prefered being ruled by Britain than by the settlers of the 13 colonies with whom the y had directly been in latent or open conflict for almost a century.

Understood; my point is the myriad of political, social, demographic, economic, and geographic issues that led to the Anerican Revolution weren't really present in the rest of the British Empire.

Best,

 

[Matteo]

Understood; my point is the myriad of political, social, demographic, economic, and geographic issues that led to the Anerican Revolution weren't really present in the rest of the British Empire.

Best,

It is correct that then were very specific. However, there is no doubt that colonized indians would have prefered to get rid of the british yoke.

 

[TFSmith121]

It is correct that then were very specific. However, there is no doubt that colonized indians would have prefered to get rid of the british yoke.

Undoubtedly, but I don't see that was in the cards, given the economic, political, and military differentials. The Americans were united politically and could compete, essentially, economically and technically with the British in the 1770s. The Indians were certainly not united, and although the prospect of political support from the French was present in India, that's pretty much all it could be, a prospect.

Best,

 

[Tripwire]

It would be almost impossible for the French to resist the temptation to at least fund and arm the American Revolutionaries. The only exception would be if the British someone miraculously managed to entirely mend their relations with the French and obtained their guarantee not to support the rebels in any way. Otherwise, imperial civil war in their greatest enemy is going to be too big of a temptation for the French to just sit on their hands and not interfere with.

Keeping French military involvement out of the war is much, much more plausible. Simply don't have the Americans win any decisive, Saratoga like battles. Actual military involvement was ridiculously more expensive than just sending arms and cash, and the French weren't going to do it if they didn't think the Americans could win.