Kosta
Banned
It's quite all-right; looking back I myself was being pedantic if not a bit rude and for that I apologise.
WI the American Revolution failed?
- Thread starter Porygon3.14
- Start date
It's quite all-right; looking back I myself was being pedantic if not a bit rude and for that I apologise.
I can see the more radical revolutionaries like Patrick Henry certainly executed, with people like Jefferson likely to follow if the ARW proves to annoy Britain enough.
Thanks. I'd actually come across these the other day. The argument in the opposite direction seems to be based around the Somersett's Case actually being the main factor in the growth of abolitionism around this time.
The native Americans would've prospered? Sorry, but I don't think that's likely. They had it pretty bad already IOTL; what makes you think they'll be any better off? Truth is, about the only times the Brits were nice to the Natives was mostly to use them against the U.S. military.
Faeelin
Banned
We have models for British action, no? Scotland after 1745, Ireland after 1798... they do not suggest moderation, IMO. They don't solve the problem that British rule, fundamentally, was designed to exploit the colonies for the advantage of the metropole. And they don't suppress the radically different notions of what liberty meant into America and the United Kingdom.
As Jefferson says in an alternate reality, before his execution: "You have cut down the tree of liberty, but it will grow back. Its roots are strong and deep."
(Although the fate of OTL's Britain suggests it is possible for those benighted isles, under the yoke of German despotism, to form free societies too).
Faeelin wrote:
Yes, the Americans believed that black people and Indians had no rights and could be brutalised and killed on a whim, whereas the British didn't.
Yes, the Americans believed that black people and Indians had no rights and could be brutalised and killed on a whim, whereas the British didn't.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
On Native Americans -- I think this is an area you want to be careful not to paint with a broad brush. IMO, for example, the Iroquois are likely to do worse, without a Canadian border, while southern "civilized" tribes like the Cherokee and the Chicksaw stand a good chance of being given limited home rule in exchange for mitary service and the like...
Tell it to the actual Indians, or the Irish, or the Scottish Catholics, or the millions of blacks that had been and were being shipped to their imminent deaths in the Caribbean, or the Chinese officials tasked with avoiding an opium epidemic.
Wasted pixels. Wasted, snarky pixels.
Shoo.
It's to note racism work oddly at times, to say the least. Some americans had an odd respect for indians, but none for blacks. 'Noble savages' vs well....
The American Revolution was not the only influence on the French Revolution. Most of the factors are in fact internal. And the first two years of the revolution were in fact a parliamentary monarchy. It was only the fault of Louis XVI personnality that he was deposed and executed. If the revolution in the US is crushed, there will be two things : the moderate won't have a great leader (as Lafayette won't be as popular), and if the subsequent repression by the british is very harsh, the english parliamentary model (which was probably the most important influence in the early revolution) will be discredited.
Also the revolution will happen latter, probably after another war in which the French Crown need to borrow money, as new taxes won't be needed and the Etats Généraux thus won't be called by the King.
The early parliamentary monarchy won't be as friendly to the king, and there will be probably more true republicans as opposed to those favorable to an english-like system.
All of the influence of the French Revolution are here : The Declaration of Independance, the Enlightment Philosophers and the various english declarations. So, the Serment du jeu de Paume would probably happen even if in another form or name, it was basically the first act of the revolution. The Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme would happen too, all the "preliminary work" was done. And as i said before, more influence to tear down the monarchy as the revolution will be more radical, due to the lack of influence of the moderate, and thus Louis XVI will make a mistake earlier, which will lead to the First Republic.
Louis XVI will never abdicate. He never did IOTL, and he was just too conservative to do it. If the more radicals revolutionnary have an earlier influence we could see some things different than IOTL (like Robespierre proposal to abolish the death sentence).
If history teach us anything, is that the british aren't really the type to soften after crushing a rebellion. The repression will probably be harsh, and the concept of colonial self-rule will be thrown back by several years.
The Indian Tribes won't prosper under the british rule and american outlaw settlers. Russia would probably sell Alaska to the UK and what happen to Mexico depend on how the things unravel in Europe.
The brutal response in Scotland was not to Scotland generally, but just to the highlanders, who were considered uncivilised and wild. The lowland Scots were treated extremely well, as they were considered akin to civilised Englishmen. Aside from the ring leaders, whom an example would have been made of, the American colonials would have generally been thought of as the latter.
As for Ireland, the planned response from Parliament was to integrate Ireland into the Union with full trade rights and give Catholics the vote in order to break the tyranny of the Protestant Ascendancy. It was only George III being a stubborn mule that scotched the Catholic bit and the Prime Minister resigned over the issue.
The radical difference was between Tories and Whigs, not between America and the UK. Hence leading parliamentarians like Pitt, Burke and Rockingham siding with the colonists. The Tory dominance in government didn't last much longer in OTL: I certainly can't see Rockingham, Shelburne, Portland or Pitt coming down that hard on the Americans.
I think you are underrating the effect of the American Revolution on support for revolutionary ideals in the French military. Militaries tend to be reactionary, and it's possible they would have crushed the rebels in France more quickly without service in America.
Britain and France were primed for another war and one would likely happen in Europe before 1789, so its possible the debt issue will happen sooner rather than later. However, whether it coincides with a famine or not will make a big difference in its course.
Strong points, but the success of the American Republic rather than just its proclamation makes a big difference: most at the time expected it to lapse back to monarchy, as large countries were thought to need strong rule. It's possible the rebels in France might invite someone else as King, Glorious Revolution style.
The British response was usually punishment for those involved, but then an attempt to deal with the underlying structural conditions. Sometimes, as in Scotland, that structural reform was brutal, but it wasn't done in terms of punishment - it was done to remove the wild clan lifestyle. If you look at the case in Ireland, as mentioned above, it was thought the issue was the Protestant Ascendancy so they removed rule from them to London. If you look at the Indian Mutiny, it was thought the main problem was corrupt and incompetent rule from the East India Company, so rule was transferred to the Raj. In Canada, which is our closest example, the response to the 1837 rebellions, was movements to responsible government. I imagine something similar would happen here.
True. IMHO, the British, in the face of a crushed American Revolution would probably have structurally redefined the relationship the colonies had with it, although I don't know exactly how that would have worked out (responsible government?)
Another thing I thought of: if the British retained the colonies, wouldn't that slow the development of other 'white settler' colonies like Australia & New Zealand, considering both the size and resources in British northern America compared to Oz & NZ?
A range of structural relationships are possible, with responsible government at one end of the spectrum, and some representation at Westminster at the other. Lots of people mention some sort of Albany Plan, but I think it's unlikely Parliament would allow such concentration of power in a non-Westminster assembly. On the other hand, some of the smaller colonies would probably be considered inviable, so they might merge some of them together.
In the case of Australia/NZ that's very likely, as they were primarily settled to have a location for convict settlement and raw materials, both of which were lost after the American Revolution. However, it's possible the Middle Colonies in North America would get upset eventually at receiving the UK's convicts, and the British would eventually want some base in the East. But, like you said, that would still be a delay.
South Africa was of course only gained later during the Napoleonic Wars, but I imagine the British would want some settlement around Southern Africa to control the trade route to India. Another interesting suggestion is the River Plate, which the British had been wanting to colonise for a while, as it had lots of great agricultural land and yet a very limited population. The loss of North America really dented their ambitions here though.
It's also interesting to think of longer term effects on the empire. A larger manpower base would likely mean a larger military. That means more ex-soldiers being sent round the world, who might want to settle somewhere and who might be given land grants. Would be interesting to hear others' views on this point however.
You have to understand that the French Revolution was a gradual event. It began as a mostly reactionnary movement in the Parlements to oppose the new taxes, which led to the Etats Généraux, which forced the king to accept a constitution after riots. After that, the Assemblée Nationale basically dissolved the old army. There was nothing that the military could really do. Also remember that most of the troops were mercenaries, and without control of Paris (it was totally under the control of the revolutionnaries, there is no way the few troops that were in Paris could maintain a control of the city), there is no treasury, so, no army. And most of the reactonnary officers quickly fled France after the event of 1789.
The harvests were really bad between 1788 and 1815.
I don't see that happenning. The establishment of the Republic was directly linked to the treason of the king, and the threat from the foreign kings. Calling a foreign noble is out of the question, IIRC, France never got a king of foreign origin, and the Revolution was the birthplace of nationalism (even if it was more tolerant that the folowing nationalisms).
Before the american revolution, we can see that harsh response were the rule, and after it more lenient one (as in Canada or Australia). I say that the aftermath won't be pretty, especially if the tories keep their power.
The manpower base isn't the real reason for a small land army, but it probably will have an interesting effect to have the American colonies as both a place to defend and a place to maybe-possibly draw soldiers from (being married to Brown Bess was not highly regarded, this won't change faster than OTL).
Snake Featherston
Banned
Failure of the American Revolution is actually rather simple to do from a military standpoint. Britain's 1777 campaign succeeds as planned due to different commanders executing a militarily logical plan, and the Continental Army is defeated in detail, its remnants putting up guerrilla resistance for a decade or two and then ceasing to fight. The French Revolution is delayed for a time, and the victory of Britain over the rebels is taken as a sign that these rebellions are foredoomed to fail.
Now, the political consequences in North America are more challenging, given one of the key grievances that motivated the Revolution in the first place.
Now, the political consequences in North America are more challenging, given one of the key grievances that motivated the Revolution in the first place.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Actually as it happens, after King Louis, his young son, and his close (and reactionary) brothers, the next in line for the throne was one Louis Phillipe II, Duke of Orleans -- a supporter of the revolutionaries and OTL the father of the July Monarch.
I prefer the more "for want of nail" PoD at Saratoga -- Benedict Arnold doesn't manage to rally the troops, the battle is lost, France and Spain hold off on aiding the Americans, and Britain wins the war. It's cliche, I know, but that's for a reason...