I want to make a timeline about all of the Britsih American colonies revolting but I need help

[VaultJumper]

I want to make the timeline because want timeline that explores the cultural, economic, and diplomatic consequences of pulling off such a feat for America and the world. The problem is I have no idea were to put the pods or if I would have a similar set of people or events to work with and I have some vague ideas of what the consequences would but I would to have some more concrete places to move to. I would love any Ideas and sources but what I know comes from Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_America and some other wiki snooping about the exact start dates of British colonies in the Americas are all which previous to 1776. Any help would be appreciated because I want to make an interesting timeline that isn't just a wank fest.

p.s. I would also like to include the Falkland, South Georgia, and South Sandwich Islands in this and I do realize that they are severely under populated. Also I think the British may have settlements and/or in all of Guiana including the Dutch and French parts at some point please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Grey Wolf]

WHEN do you want this to happen? I don't understand

If it is in the 1770s, then a lot of what would later be colonies are not that - some are minor trading posts, others might be holdings of the East India Company, and many are still native-controlled

 

[Winestu]

What and when are the POD’s?

 

[Brunaburh]

Britain left the Falklands to the Spanish in 1770, leaving a plaque behind them to say they were still British territory. The plaque is unlikely to revolt. The South Sandwich islands and South Georgia were uninhabited.

Realistically speaking, anything off the US mainland can not be held against the RN for any length of time.

 

[VaultJumper]

What and when are the POD’s?

that's the point I don't know how I would do this obliviously I would need to make Britain more Draconian which is pretty easy but how do I make the colonies stronger, or the British, weaker and/or more distracted?

 

[VaultJumper]

Britain left the Falklands to the Spanish in 1770, leaving a plaque behind them to say they were still British territory. The plaque is unlikely to revolt. The South Sandwich islands and South Georgia were uninhabited.

Realistically speaking, anything off the US mainland can not be held against the RN for any length of time.

I know that's my problem I don't know how get the colonies a stronger navy or make the British one more distracted or weaker

 

[James Ricker]

Take a look at the people running the Massachusetts colony. Those idiots started the revolution.Centralizing colonal power and placing one of them in charge of all North American colonies would do it.
A POD during the French Indian war like the use of more British regulars in the war would be good.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

The British government conciliates the American patriots and those colonies don't revolt. By doing so, they undermine their financial position so badly that there is a revolution in England in the 1780s, before the French one and for similar reasons. One POD could be the health problems of George III developing earlier -he had an episode in the 1760s- necessitating a de factor or de jure regency that pursues different policies.

The Regent, with the insane George III in tow, flees to the American colonies which remain loyal. The revolutionary government in London proclaims that all American colonies still loyal to the Hanoverian tyrants are in revolt.

 

[VaultJumper]

The British government conciliates the American patriots and those colonies don't revolt. By doing so, they undermine their financial position so badly that there is a revolution in England in the 1780s, before the French one and for similar reasons. One POD could be the health problems of George III developing earlier -he had an episode in the 1760s- necessitating a de factor or de jure regency that pursues different policies.

The Regent, with the insane George III in tow, flees to the American colonies which remain loyal. The revolutionary government in London proclaims that all American colonies still loyal to the Hanoverian tyrants are in revolt.

damn I really like that Idea and I remember hearing that then American revolution wasn't a divorce the king of Britain but the Parliament because they didn't have representation in Parliament. But would centralizing the colonies be enough to bankrupt Britain?

 

[VaultJumper]

Take a look at the people running the Massachusetts colony. Those idiots started the revolution.Centralizing colonal power and placing one of them in charge of all North American colonies would do it.
A POD during the French Indian war like the use of more British regulars in the war would be good.

how would using more British regulars help?

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

To respond to the question above, I don't have the details in memory, but the exchequer in the 1760s were running a serious deficit due to the expenses of the Seven Years War, where the purse strings had been loosened as regards the North American colonies especially, producing an economic boom there, and because of corruption ("the Old Corruption") generally. George III appointed ministers with instructions to get things under control.

Something had to be done, and the North American colonies were an obvious target for revenue raising measures. Because of Pontiac's rebellion, the British government decided they still needed to station troops in the colonies. It was a fairly small number, but they still had to be paid and supplied. So no peace dividend. There were of course no direct taxes levied on the colonists, but even the customs duties that everyone agreed Parliament could levy were not being collected. So the colonies were a pure money drain as far as Parliament was concerned.

Added to that, when the East India Company needed to be bailed out, the decision was taken to allow them to sell their surplus tea rotting in London warehouses in the colonies directly, at a discount, with some revenue going to the government. And we all know how THAT worked out. So the Patriot agenda was keeping the British government from even shoring up its position in areas that had nothing to due with America.

So yes, I could see a scenario where a British government that gives the Americans everything they demanded is left pretty much bankrupt in the 1780s in the process.

 

[VaultJumper]

To respond to the question above, I don't have the details in memory, but the exchequer in the 1760s were running a serious deficit due to the expenses of the Seven Years War, where the purse strings had been loosened as regards the North American colonies especially, producing an economic boom there, and because of corruption ("the Old Corruption") generally. George III appointed ministers with instructions to get things under control.

Something had to be done, and the North American colonies were an obvious target for revenue raising measures. Because of Pontiac's rebellion, the British government decided they still needed to station troops in the colonies. It was a fairly small number, but they still had to be paid and supplied. So no peace dividend. There were of course no direct taxes levied on the colonists, but even the customs duties that everyone agreed Parliament could levy were not being collected. So the colonies were a pure money drain as far as Parliament was concerned.

Added to that, when the East India Company needed to be bailed out, the decision was taken to allow them to sell their surplus tea rotting in London warehouses in the colonies directly, at a discount, with some revenue going to the government. And we all know how THAT worked out. So the Patriot agenda was keeping the British government from even shoring up its position in areas that had nothing to due with America.

So yes, I could see a scenario where a British government that gives the Americans everything they demanded is left pretty much bankrupt in the 1780s in the process.

I guess the colonies would be friendlier to the King and Parliament in ttl how would the exiles effect the colonies and which one would they set up a capital my bet would be on Virginia, South Carolina, or Georgia. Another question is how much of the of the royal navy, army and other colonies would remain loyal to the crown. thank for giving me completely new Idea to think about

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

I want to make the timeline because want timeline that explores the cultural, economic, and diplomatic consequences of pulling off such a feat for America and the world. The problem is I have no idea were to put the pods or if I would have a similar set of people or events to work with and I have some vague ideas of what the consequences would but I would to have some more concrete places to move to. I would love any Ideas and sources but what I know comes from Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_America and some other wiki snooping about the exact start dates of British colonies in the Americas are all which previous to 1776. Any help would be appreciated because I want to make an interesting timeline that isn't just a wank fest.

p.s. I would also like to include the Falkland, South Georgia, and South Sandwich Islands in this and I do realize that they are severely under populated. Also I think the British may have settlements and/or in all of Guiana including the Dutch and French parts at some point please correct me if I am wrong.

Revolting to form a common state? Impossible without a PoD back in the 1600s.
Revolting for separate (perhaps even conflicting) reasons? You'd still need a perfect storm, but it's kinda possible.

 

[VaultJumper]

Revolting to form a common state? Impossible without a PoD back in the 1600s.
Revolting for separate (perhaps even conflicting) reasons? You'd still need a perfect storm, but it's kinda possible.

ooh do please elaborate

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

ooh do please elaborate

Well you can really get all of BNA to revolt with a late POD, because no Jamaican slave is going to revolt in favour of the leadership of a Virginian slave owner, similarly no Canadien is going to revolt in favour of the people who are intent on tearing up the Quebec Act. The patriots couldn't even get all 13 Colonies on the revolutionary agenda (there were a couple that were majority Loyalist), asking for the rest of BNA to participate is asking too much.

As for a bunch of separate rebellions, Brits axe the Quebec Act, its not enough to mollify the Patriots they still revolt, the Canadien elite is now pissed enough to issue their own declaration of independence (probably bringing the Bourbon states in sooner), seeing as how the British Empire is essentially burning down around them a series of slave revolts erupt in the Caribbean. Bam, no more BNA, 3 (possibly many more, if a balkanized eastern North America is too your liking) new states occupying its former territory.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Oh I know, make one where the support of William or James in the Glorious Revolution is split between the homeland and colonies (as opposed to favoring Will in almost every location but Ireland)

 

[James Ricker]

how would using more British regulars help?

With more troops in North America a more centralized government would be needed in order to keep the troops supplied. Through sheer buracratic inertia the centeralized government would survive. Being out of the way and far away from England it would be the perfect dumping ground for a low quality officals with high connections , a recipe for disaster.

 

[VaultJumper]

With more troops in North America a more centralized government would be needed in order to keep the troops supplied. Through sheer buracratic inertia the centeralized government would survive. Being out of the way and far away from England it would be the perfect dumping ground for a low quality officals with high connections , a recipe for disaster.

ah the Dilbert effect.