13 Colonies sort out differences with Britian peacefully

TFSmith121

Banned
Certainly true...

I will post a longer reply when I'm not on a mobile device, but most posta so far have been ridiculously far off the mark. The war didn't begin because the Brits didn't remove enough taxes. It began because the Brits shut down the economy of one of the main cities in America, scrapped elected assemblies to be replaced by royal appointees, and forced anyone accused of a crime to lose 6 to 12 months of livelihood to attend court halfway across the world. There's nothing inevitable about war.

Certainly true...

Best,
 
To be fair to George III and his prime ministers was there any real way to keep the 13 colonies in the empire once New France no longer threatened them? People bash him for his incompetence but could even a great king have found a way to preserve the empire after 1763? The colonies wanted the lands of the Native Americans and would not have allowed the British to keep them away from those lands indefinitely.
 
To be fair to George III and his prime ministers was there any real way to keep the 13 colonies in the empire once New France no longer threatened them? People bash him for his incompetence but could even a great king have found a way to preserve the empire after 1763? The colonies wanted the lands of the Native Americans and would not have allowed the British to keep them away from those lands indefinitely.

What kept the crown from letting the colonists have at the natives? Did they actually care about them or something outrageous? The colonists will even do all of the "work".
 
We should note that taxation was not the only means of control the British had over the colonies. Each colony also had a governor, appointed by the monarch, who could not be removed from power and who wielded veto power over the colonial assembly. Even as the British monarch had ceased to veto acts of Parliament, his representatives were regularly doing this in the colonies. Disputes between the governors and the assemblies were frequent, and frustration over these issues had been developing for some time before the Revolution, with assemblies complaining that arbitrary nature of governance was a violation of the principle of "government deriving its authority from the consent of the governed."

Peaceful reconciliation with Britain may require popularly-elected governors (which all of the states adopted after independence). Could George III accept this?
 
Last edited:
I will post a longer reply when I'm not on a mobile device, but most posta so far have been ridiculously far off the mark. The war didn't begin because the Brits didn't remove enough taxes. It began because the Brits shut down the economy of one of the main cities in America, scrapped elected assemblies to be replaced by royal appointees, and forced anyone accused of a crime to lose 6 to 12 months of livelihood to attend court halfway across the world. There's nothing inevitable about war.

Well yes, that was the most definite reason "why the war happened." Nobody was going to pick up arms and go into revolt over freaking tea taxes, it was hard enough getting all the colonies to work together to leverage economic pressure on Britain to repeal the taxes when they were on more than just tea. (Colonial unity worked for opposing the Stamp Act, but organized colonial response to the later taxes never really took off, even if the opinion of them was almost universally negative)

But we're going into the root causes of why the situation got like it did by 1773, and that's fine.
 
What if the 13 colonies in America made some sort of compromise with Britain, preventing a revolution? In this TL, the crown is advised by people suggesting that guerilla warfare, while not capable of actually winning a rebellion, could be quite costly, and it is better to give limited autonomy to the colonies to make them stop being so rambunctious. I am not sure exactly what the colonies wanted, but suppose Britain had some face saving measure to give them some of what they want, and the colonists decide that it isn't worth revolting of the rest. How would this change history?

A lot will depend on when this takes place. There were very large shifts in mindset on both sides of the Atlantic between 1765 and 1775. The most important changes were:

- The British reaction to the Boston Tea Party in 1773, which a lot of people felt turned a reasonable movement of civil disobedience into wanton criminality. (Oddly, the burning of the Gaspee didn't seem to have this effect.)
- The colonial reaction to the occupation of Boston and then, especially, the Intolerable Acts, which colonials felt turned an argument against unfair taxation into a vital defence against European style absolutism
- The ongoing dispute and pamphlet war of the early 1770s, which created a strong sense of American identity that didn't previously exist

If it's a late compromise by the British, it will only be a matter of delaying the inevitable. A new American identity has been founded that is on constant vigilance against every step from the British being a danger to their liberty. Sooner or later, a misunderstanding is going to cause separation. The best you can hope for (from a united empire perspective) is a union in name only, effectively a personal union under the crown.

However, earlier changes can certainly cause a coherent empire to continue. The British actually did begin compromising after the initial misstep of the Stamp Act, but as long as they stick to only taxation measures, there's never going to be a complete removal of tension. There's a basic problem that the Brits want to get at least some revenue out of the colonists, while the colonists feel that any revenue-raising under the current imperial setup is unfair. Eventually, the broader issues of the mercantilist system under the Navigation Acts, and the constitutional system with no formal role for the Americans in imperial decision, will need to be addressed.

However, a grand bargain solving all issues in a couple of years is implausible. What you need is some action by the British showing there is enough low level responsiveness to American concerns for the colonists to feel they can have some influence through legitimate channels. Then other issues to have gradual improvements over the coming decades. As long as that process plays out without anything outrageous inflammatory from London, I think it's more likely than not to work out.

So back to addressing your actual question of the long term impact from history, well it will be huge, and I obviously can't write an entire treatise here. But the initial major changes in the next few decades are likely to be:

- No American Revolutionary War, where the British Empire is cut down to size. The British will face the next general European war in a far stronger position, as they will be able to deploy their entire naval superiority against multiple European powers, rather than have to spend half of it blockading the American coast.
- The French likely join the War of the Bavarian Succession on Austria's side, as they will not have the ARW as a get-out of their alliance. This likely means the restoration of Silesia to the Habsburg domains. This halts Prussia's astonishing rise in our timeline. It is possible the British join the Prussian side, but they will have limited ability to impact the land war. If they join, they would likely take more Caribbean possesions. If Spain is drawn in, attacks on New Orleans and South American could also happen, which could go either way.
- The Dutch Patriot Revolt likely does not happen. Patriot discourse in the Netherlands was focused around a battle within the elite, mainly through constitutional struggles, before the American Revolution. There was a notable change from the Revolution where ideas emerged that the mass of the general people to overthrow the Stadtholder. This won't happen here, which means no Prussian intervention.
- The French Revolution is very hard to predict, but it's volatility means it will likely unfold differently. The French financial system is unlikely to be much better if the French fought over Bavaria, but the greater popular violence will likely be reduced. One possibility is that the Day of Tiles never happens, which means Province of Dauphin never grants double representation in the provincial estates. That could mean no double representation in the estates general when they are called up, meaning the arguments for the formation of a national assembly never happens. The Third Estate would likely have to join with the lower clergy to get their laws passed, meaning much more religious influence in the end settlement. I also imagine the lower clergy would stop anything obviously treasonous from happening. You'd need to write a new timeline to examine all the ramifications of that!
 
Britain tried that. They repealed all the taxes except for one, on principle. Wasn't enough. Americans were too overwrought, even then.

The British decision to impose martial law on Massachusetts and take away traditional English rights didn't help.
 
However, earlier changes can certainly cause a coherent empire to continue. The British actually did begin compromising after the initial misstep of the Stamp Act, but as long as they stick to only taxation measures, there's never going to be a complete removal of tension. There's a basic problem that the Brits want to get at least some revenue out of the colonists, while the colonists feel that any revenue-raising under the current imperial setup is unfair.

Part of the problem is that you can't point to a single American policy goal that was met during this period. Westward expansion? Cut off. Taxes? Lowered, but only at British behest.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
The best way to achieve a long-term peaceful resolution will be an American Parliament as Benjamin Franklin pushed for, that handled local taxation, governance, etc - and sent a representative to the Kings privy council. Perhaps working in a Roman Consul model, two Americans, one year in the states, one year in Britain. Lets call them 'First Ministers'

The British Parliament can probably match the model themselves, and continues with its domestic interests as normal.

There still are four/five issues.

1) Foreign Policy. If there isn't a coherent foreign policy both Britain and America can agree on, the Empire is doomed and fundamentally untrustworthy on the diplomatic scene.

2) Imperial Jurisprudence. There needs to be a sense of common laws, not all laws certainly, otherwise the American Parliament becomes less toothy, but certainly capital crimes.

3) Defence. Will it be consisting of two/three armies with the Monarch as the Commander in Chief of all of them? Or one army where American and Britain are both recruiting grounds, or is America (and Britain) required to send X recruits a year to an Imperial Army?

4) Paying for all these three, and other Imperial overheads. If the Empire is happy to pay for everything with trade revenues? Fantastic - but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a tax on Brit and Yank alike.

5) Resolving disputes. I've always felt that the only way this could work is with First Ministers either advising the King, deal making, and/or a democratic council where the King is a tie-breaker if required.

The biggest remaining disputes - the debt of the Seven Years war, and the proclamation line.

They could both be resolved - the Americans take on a negotiated share of the war debt in exchange for rights to colonise beyond the proclamation line (an alright deal, not my preference), or a Native American Parliament is set up that the colonists can negotiate with, turning the proclamation line into a British Native American problem rather than a royal one (I like this solution, as the early settlers have incentives to restrict immigration from the coast in later generations, leading to the East Coast and Great Lakes having to reach a resolution).

My preference would be a debt settlement, and the establishment of a Colonial Authority beyond the Appalachians (and up till the Mississippi?). If this happened I expect widespread settlement beyond the Appalachians, with a later call for a new Parliament there. However, there will almost certainly be a call for a Caribean Parliament - same rights, First Ministers, the lot - even if only for the Whites. Later extending to African, Indian, etc holdings, each with their own settlement for how First Ministers rotate to London or not.

Whilst the strong local governments ensure each region is strong, and capable on its own, it does constrain the monarch. Good/Bad depending on circumstances. It does mean that any abuses, perceived abuses, or outright insurrectionist nonsense that catches hold, can lead to strong, organised rebellions that will be very difficult to put down, be they seccessions, or civil wars.

However, it also means that outside resolving disputes, any central government can focus on larger projects - such as control over trade, or establishing new territories, as outside of violations of jurisdiction, the central government has little else to do.
 
Part of the problem is that you can't point to a single American policy goal that was met during this period. Westward expansion? Cut off. Taxes? Lowered, but only at British behest.

Westward expansion was certainly met. The initial Proclamation Line didn't stop Westward expansion, but merely tried to order so it did not needlessly upset the native tribes that the UK wanted to co-operate with to get fur trade revenue. It was set very badly, further East than a number of existing settlements. The colonists complained. The line was adjusted. The issue was no longer a running sore by the late 1760s.

It's actually a text book case in how the tax controversy could have been resolved - and actually was starting to until Townshend got stuck in. If Pitt had not been so ill with gout. Or if a less hardline chancellor had served under him, you could have got another ten years of it just being a low level dispute.

Then you could get another war, which causes pro-British patriotic feeling in the colonies, which puts confrontation off for longer. It gives plenty of time for a positive reform that could neutralise the issue further.
 
The best way to achieve a long-term peaceful resolution will be an American Parliament as Benjamin Franklin pushed for, that handled local taxation, governance, etc - and sent a representative to the Kings privy council. Perhaps working in a Roman Consul model, two Americans, one year in the states, one year in Britain. Lets call them 'First Ministers'

This isn't realistic. It's part of the DNA of the post-1688 and certainly post-1715 that the Westminster parliament is sovereign. The vast majority of the British elite had hardly been to the colonies, and they were only just starting to think of them as something more than beefed up commercial outposts. They certainly will not stomach something as grand as a parliament implying equality with Westminster unless they feel they are already losing a war and its a last chance saloon for them. They also do not want to unite the colonies around a competing source of power.

What they could stomach, with the right people in charge in London, would be a beefing up of authority for colonial assemblies that are "parliaments in miniature" with greater jurisdiction relative to colonial governors. They could then grow in stature and importance as their respective colonial economies grew in time. They also would have an interest in having the colonies be more capable of working together to deal with frontier issues. Most likely they could aggregate the more developed colonies into four or five larger ones.

1) Foreign Policy. If there isn't a coherent foreign policy both Britain and America can agree on, the Empire is doomed and fundamentally untrustworthy on the diplomatic scene.

There was a fairly established foreign policy around this time: bog down the French and Spanish in Europe, while grabbing their colonial properties. If necessary, swap some colonial gains back to restore the balance of power in Europe. The Americans were very on board with this: American newspapers actually covered European geostrategy more in the 1760s than at any other point during the following century.

2) Imperial Jurisprudence. There needs to be a sense of common laws, not all laws certainly, otherwise the American Parliament becomes less toothy, but certainly capital crimes.

I think this is too much and it goes against the colonial desire to set their own laws. The only thing needed is the English bill of rights, limiting the power of central government against citizens, being applied to the colonies. This is very doable, and many leading parliamentarians already believed in this.

3) Defence. Will it be consisting of two/three armies with the Monarch as the Commander in Chief of all of them? Or one army where American and Britain are both recruiting grounds, or is America (and Britain) required to send X recruits a year to an Imperial Army?

Even the idea of a standing army at all was controversial in the UK in this time. It certainly would be in America. On the other hand, colonial militias were useless. What would be needed is agreement for a certain number of local citizens to be trained as British regulars during wartime, as needed for colonial operations.

4) Paying for all these three, and other Imperial overheads. If the Empire is happy to pay for everything with trade revenues? Fantastic - but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a tax on Brit and Yank alike.

I think this would be a deal breaker. Realistically, the motherland is going to have to pay the lion's share of tax. But a contribution is needed from the colonies. The best way to square the circle is to agree a £ amount and the colonies are responsible for this themselves. Relaxing some mercantilist policies would sweeten the deal.

5) Resolving disputes. I've always felt that the only way this could work is with First Ministers either advising the King, deal making, and/or a democratic council where the King is a tie-breaker if required.

Parliament is sovereign and there's no way the whole British constitutional setup is up for debate. What could be done is allowing American MPs or giving privy council positions to American agents. Over time, a more even system will be needed, but this would be enough for the next thirty or forty years.

The biggest remaining disputes - the debt of the Seven Years war, and the proclamation line.

The British would be willing to swallow the 7YW debt providing they established principle of financial contribution for future wars. The proclamation line had already been mostly resolved, as I mentioned in my previous post. Longer term, the Indians are likely to get mostly sold out by the British. There's no way they would be willing to risk losing the American colonies for fur trade revenues, much less for concern for the welfare of 'savages'.
 
If I recall correctly,
France was against Austria in the Bavarian Crisis. they were only tenuous allies at the time, as much of France was Austrophobe. the royal marriage was unpopular. France certainly did NOT want Austria to be gaining in strength. Virtually everyone was against Austria gaining in strength.

IMO, the only thing that brings France into a war siding with Austria is an opportunity to strike at Britain. As long as things are sticky in America, Britain is walking softly in Europe. If things are smoothed over, and Britain took a leading role in blocking Austrian goals, France is going to have to reverse course to support Austria. I think Austria folds even quicker than they did OTL.

But, since this is alternate history, and implausible things happen (like the US going to war with Britain in 1895), what happens? It's going to be France and Austria and Spain (who is also spoiling for a war of revenge against Britain) against everyone else -primarily Prussia (where Frederick wants to gain, but where he wants to gain is going to be in the coalition against Austria), Russia, Britain. Britain is likely to just provide monetary subsidies keeping Prussia and Russia in the fight, who want their money, but based on past experience, don't trust them at all. They'll likely bend over backwards to keep the American colonies from the fight. Spain will look to regain Florida. Can they do it with Britain unencumbered with military obligations elsewhere? Will Britain be forced diplomatically to pony up land forces for Europe? France's primary goal is to bloody Britain. they're likely to partner up with Spain, but how do they go about it? OTL, France put a lot of coin into America. they're freed up from that and are looking to win a continental war, but the primary foe of Britain may not oblige them of giving a target. Although, maybe in such a scenario makes them eager to attempt a cross channel invasion.

I keep coming back to France not backing Austria just to get at Britain. The best case is a stronger Austria, which they don't want.
 
Would a different king have been more open to granting the colonies more autonomy? There are a couple of scenarios -

(1) George III's father Frederick doesn't die in 1751 at the age of 44 and survives another 30 years or so.

(2) George III, born 2 months premature, dies in infancy, resulting in a completely different successor regardless of Frederick's fate.
 
(2) George III, born 2 months premature, dies in infancy, resulting in a completely different successor regardless of Frederick's fate.


In this case his brother the Duke of York becomes King Edward VII. OTL Edward died in 1767, but this was from something contracted on an Italian holiday, so is likely to be butterflied.

Hard to say what he'd have done about America, be he sounds to have been a more "laid back" personality who at least wouldn't have worked so hard at getting it wrong. So he might well let North quit after Saratoga, which means an earlier end to the war.

Whether he could have avoided the war altogether is something else, ut it is at least conceivable that he might have let the tea duty drop for the sake of a quiet life. That at least delays things..
 
Top