AHC: 1837 Rebellions in the Canadas turn into major international war

A bit of background: The Rebellions of 1837 were two armed uprisings that took place in the provinces of Lower Canada (Quebec today) and Upper Canada (Ontario today) which while fairly disjointed from one another were both motivated by the desire for political reform (which was to an extent fulfilled as a result by the granting of responsible government to the Canadas and eventually influencing the creation of Canada in 1867). The much larger of the two Rebellions was the one that occurred in Lower Canada with the number of Patriote armed rebels numbering in the low thousands with a good deal of public sympathy behind them eventually being defeated by larger forces of British Regulars and Canadian Militia. The Lower Canada Rebellion is fairly well known in Quebec today, in no small part due to it being put back in the public media by the Quebec Separatist movement in the latter part of the 20th century (The Spirit of '37). The Upper Canada Rebellion was much smaller and was defeated very quickly (although it subsequently led to the Patriot War) and is largely forgotten in Ontario today except for an old myth that when the rebels marched on British forces in Toronto and the first musket line dropped on its knees to fire, the rest of the rebels all thought they had been shot and fled, thus quickly ending the battle. All told the two rebellions were pretty small scale and only had a little over 100 combat deaths on both sides. Their was significant sympathy for the rebels in sections of the US public (the Hunter's Lodge was formed in Vermont and in 1838 launched a small invasion into Canada- which was defeated by British forces- with the intent of establishing a Republic of Canada). However the US did not directly intervene in the rebellions and ultimately arrested the defeated Lodge members when they retreated to New York (Out of curiosity does anyone actually know why the Us chose not to intervene in OTL?).

So the challenge is to turn this conflict, which is in OTL a historical footnote (even in Canada outside of Quebec it is pretty much forgotten) into a major international war. The most likely way to get this is by having another country intervene on the side of the rebels with the US being the best potential candidate (close proximity, public support for rebels, public resentment of the British) or possibly intervention by another European Power (were any of them in a position to overtly cross Britain in the 1830s?).

NOTE: The scenario does not necessarily have to end with Canadian independence (although it can); it can be a major war which the British are victorious (how would this change how British North America and the other Colonies would be governed in the aftermath?) or even where the Canadas are annexed by the US (how would this affect the development of the United States, especially through the Mexican-American War and the Free State vs Slave State tension that led to the civil war?).

Any ideas or insights would be appreciated.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
It's a huge stretch and pretty close to non-sensical, but

A bit of background: The Rebellions of 1837 were two armed uprisings that took place in the provinces of Lower Canada (Quebec today) and Upper Canada (Ontario today) which while fairly disjointed from one another were both motivated by the desire for political reform (which was to an extent fulfilled as a result by the granting of responsible government to the Canadas and eventually influencing the creation of Canada in 1867). The much larger of the two Rebellions was the one that occurred in Lower Canada with the number of Patriote armed rebels numbering in the low thousands with a good deal of public sympathy behind them eventually being defeated by larger forces of British Regulars and Canadian Militia. The Lower Canada Rebellion is fairly well known in Quebec today, in no small part due to it being put back in the public media by the Quebec Separatist movement in the latter part of the 20th century (The Spirit of '37). The Upper Canada Rebellion was much smaller and was defeated very quickly (although it subsequently led to the Patriot War) and is largely forgotten in Ontario today except for an old myth that when the rebels marched on British forces in Toronto and the first musket line dropped on its knees to fire, the rest of the rebels all thought they had been shot and fled, thus quickly ending the battle. All told the two rebellions were pretty small scale and only had a little over 100 combat deaths on both sides. Their was significant sympathy for the rebels in sections of the US public (the Hunter's Lodge was formed in Vermont and in 1838 launched a small invasion into Canada- which was defeated by British forces- with the intent of establishing a Republic of Canada). However the US did not directly intervene in the rebellions and ultimately arrested the defeated Lodge members when they retreated to New York (Out of curiosity does anyone actually know why the Us chose not to intervene in OTL?).

So the challenge is to turn this conflict, which is in OTL a historical footnote (even in Canada outside of Quebec it is pretty much forgotten) into a major international war. The most likely way to get this is by having another country intervene on the side of the rebels with the US being the best potential candidate (close proximity, public support for rebels, public resentment of the British) or possibly intervention by another European Power (were any of them in a position to overtly cross Britain in the 1830s?).

NOTE: The scenario does not necessarily have to end with Canadian independence (although it can); it can be a major war which the British are victorious (how would this change how British North America and the other Colonies would be governed in the aftermath?) or even where the Canadas are annexed by the US (how would this affect the development of the United States, especially through the Mexican-American War and the Free State vs Slave State tension that led to the civil war?).

Any ideas or insights would be appreciated.

It's a huge stretch and pretty close to non-sensical, but with a European patron (at least) for the Canadiens, AND US involvement, it's possible (remote, but not as remote as half the "what ifs" posted here) that one could end up with a large international conflict.

Louis-Napoleon, of course, was in the US in the late 1830s, and Louis-Phillipe (with Thiers or Molé as PM, presumably) was certainly in a position to lead France to war - the issue, of course, is that both houses were basically Anglophile at this point, but given some more nationalist influences earlier on, it's possible you could get a French equivalent of the Kruger Telegram in support of the Canadiens, which if nothing else, would lead to a much more confrontational relationship between the British and French, and far fewer British resources for Britih North America.

Now, if one can kill off Van Buren between his inauguration and the outbreak of the rebellions, and Richard Mentor Johnson becomes president, it is possible the US would be more supportive of the Upper and Lower Canada rebels; given the Caroline affair and Aroostook crisis, there are certainly enough provocative acts by the British in this period.

Throw W.H. Harrison into the mix as a "unity" type government (replacing Poinsett as secretary of war, with Poinsett as undersecretary, perhaps), Forsyth at State, Woodbury at Treasury, and Dickerson and Paulding at Navy, and there's a fairly strong executive branch. Jackson is 70, but presumably would be a gray eminence and an effective strategist. Scott is 51, and extremely healthy, and knows the border like the back of his hand...

In the UK, the monarch is a very young Victoria, and the PM is Melbourne; not the greatest combination, but not the worst. Hill is General-in-chief and Wellington is at loose ends...

If the French intervene (and that's a huge if), basically, this is the worst possible strategic situation for the British; a Continental enemy, rebellion in BNA, and the US is quite capable of deploying and sustaining military power north of the border...

Best,
 
As a note, the US did not intervene historically for a number of reasons, the Panic of 1837 perhaps being one of the greatest, and that Van Buren was focused largely on internal issues with little overall interest in foreign policy.

However, even had the US been in a position and mood to intervene the rebels would have needed significantly more popular support than they gathered historically and would have had to show themselves to be in a position of strength rather than a movement that needed to be propped up.

Not even 20 years after the last war the US wasn't sincerely interested in round 3.
 
You'd probably need an earlier POD - with Jackson not becoming POTUS, or being defeated in 1832 - to prevent the Crash of 1837 so that the U.S. economy would be up to entering the war.
 
@TFSmith121

How difficult would it have been for a motivated politician to in either the US or France to reform the Franco-American partnership against the US, seeing as how the US and France had fought together against the UK twice in living memory (American Revolution, War of 1812) and the American expansionist drive was really just kicking into high gear at this time (Mexican-American War on the horizon, All Oregon movement and 54'40 or Fight). So how difficult would it have been to align these two powers? Would it have just taken a small push or would you have needed a laundry list of TL changes?

@EnglishCanuck @Emperor Julian

Interesting to see how much British capital funded American expansion in this era, even as the two countries were often at loggerheads in international politics (including the issue of American expansion). On one hand, not wanting to scare off British investors (or have them physically prevented from being active in the US by a Royal Navy Blockade) would have certainly been a motivation for the US government to keep peaceful relations with the UK. On the other hand, the UK financial system was seen as at least partially culpable for the Panic of 1837 and exploiting American Anglophobia (which would almost certainly have increased during this recession) seems like a useful tool for politicians trying to run for office at this time. Certainly politicians before and since have used war with a foreign power (especially if they can claim said foreign country is responsible for the domestic issue in question) as a way to distract the public from domestic issues.
 
Interesting to see how much British capital funded American expansion in this era, even as the two countries were often at loggerheads in international politics (including the issue of American expansion). On one hand, not wanting to scare off British investors (or have them physically prevented from being active in the US by a Royal Navy Blockade) would have certainly been a motivation for the US government to keep peaceful relations with the UK. On the other hand, the UK financial system was seen as at least partially culpable for the Panic of 1837 and exploiting American Anglophobia (which would almost certainly have increased during this recession) seems like a useful tool for politicians trying to run for office at this time.

Anglophobia (and a list of other phobias) were excellent tools in the political arena in this century. Slogans like that could really whip up popular support for certain causes (Fifty-four forty or fight comes to mind) but at the same time for all the rhetoric by American politicians and newspapers occasionally spewed forth, the fact that they went for arbitration each time suggests no one sincerely wanted the economic dislocation and sacrifices in lives and blood war would have caused.

On the military front the US wasn't stupid, they had precisely zero illusions about their abilities to challenge Great Britain (still basking in its own glory on the idea they alone had defeated Napoleon) in a stand up fight on their own.

Waving the bloody shirt may be useful at times, but when you have to get some actual blood spilled most politicians (unless they have a good political reason) tend to shy away from it.

---

My own suggestions for perhaps engineering US involvement would be a harsher treaty in the War of 1812 leading to plenty of pent up anger and military rearmament, some spectacular British mismanagement of events from 1816-1836 when it comes to the North American colonies, and some kind of European crisis which distracts Britain which could give the Americans hope that they might stand a chance if they have another go at it.

I'm skeptical of European involvement since there isn't really a European power who has a prayer of going toe-to-toe with the Royal Navy in this period. But a crisis in Europe where it looks like Britain may have to intervene would divide their attention and resources.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Difficult, which is why I suggested having Van Buren die

@TFSmith121

How difficult would it have been for a motivated politician to in either the US or France to reform the Franco-American partnership against the US, seeing as how the US and France had fought together against the UK twice in living memory (American Revolution, War of 1812) and the American expansionist drive was really just kicking into high gear at this time (Mexican-American War on the horizon, All Oregon movement and 54'40 or Fight). So how difficult would it have been to align these two powers? Would it have just taken a small push or would you have needed a laundry list of TL changes?

Difficult, which is why I suggested having Van Buren die. Van Buren spent the 1812-15 conflict in the New York state legislature (although he did have some military responsibilities regarding the state militia, and there's some evidence he and Scott discussed a commission for him in the event there was a major offensive north of the BNA-NY border in 1815); Johnson, of course, spent the 1812-15 conflict quite effectively organizing and leading mobile forces against the both the British and Tecumseh's forces, to the point he was credited with personally killing Tecumseh (open question whether he did or not) who had, after all, been offered a commission in the British forces...

As far as the financial element goes, it is worth noting that Woodbury managed to deal with the 1837 financial issues; it was hardly the Great Depression.

Best,
 
On the military front the US wasn't stupid, they had precisely zero illusions about their abilities to challenge Great Britain (still basking in its own glory on the idea they alone had defeated Napoleon) in a stand up fight on their own.

But that is just it, the US isn't going toe to toe with the UK on an even footing in an attempt to seize territory with a population that is hostile to the US. In this situation they are backing a rebellion that is already in progress and any US troops entering the Canadas (particularly Lower Canada) under the mandate of helping to liberate them really would be viewed as friends and liberators by a lot of the population, not as invaders as they were in the American Revolution and the War of 1812. It is true the UK isn't fighting with France at this time, but that also means that they are not on a war footing and are not mobilized anywhere near the level they were in the Napoleonic Wars, so I am not even sure how much of an army the UK could raise and project across the Atlantic before the US and Canadian rebels had taken over most of the BNA colonies (some level headed analysis of the readily available force the UK could project across the Atlantic would be appreciated). Even if it is likely that the UK would successfully hold the Atlantic Provinces after the opening American offensive (key being the port of Halifax) where the British defenses are strongest and possibly Quebec City (which is heavily fortified and has a British garrison despite having plenty of Patriote sympathizers in the city itself), retaking the sparsely populated lost territory in the west (what is now Ontario) would be a monumental challenge. Also this is assuming that no European power or group of powers sees and exploits this opportunity as a chance to contain British power (ala the American Revolution). Certainly a British defeat isn't inevitable but it seems like the Americans would have some important factors in their favor during this 3rd invasion (or liberation) of Canada that they didn't have before.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Hm, 1830s... should be fun!


Let's see, ships of the line... counting only non-hulked extant ships.


RN
120 x12
110 x1
100 x4
98 x3
92 x3
84 x10
80 x3
74 x38

...and I'll stop there.

USN
90 x3
74 x3


(Well, we know who's winning that one - though the US does have another few SOL on the stocks.)

Sadly looks like none of the Symonds ships are around yet.


Now, this is the days of shell-firing and solid-firing guns, which makes it interesting - shells are much less potent than you may have heard, the problem is that the shell often detonates somewhere it doesn't do much damage. It's a reason they kept lowering the muzzle velocity. Both sides use them, so it more or less evens out.
 
Hm, 1830s... should be fun!


Let's see, ships of the line... counting only non-hulked extant ships.


RN
120 x12
110 x1
100 x4
98 x3
92 x3
84 x10
80 x3
74 x38

...and I'll stop there.

USN
90 x3
74 x3


(Well, we know who's winning that one - though the US does have another few SOL on the stocks.)

Sadly looks like none of the Symonds ships are around yet.


Now, this is the days of shell-firing and solid-firing guns, which makes it interesting - shells are much less potent than you may have heard, the problem is that the shell often detonates somewhere it doesn't do much damage. It's a reason they kept lowering the muzzle velocity. Both sides use them, so it more or less evens out.

Yes, warships are great for winning battles on the seas and launching coastal raids and blockades and no doubt the RN would have been quite a useful tool in this conflict (at the very least to discourage European meddling), but the rebellions have their epicenters far inland. The seapower of Great Britain would have been able to render their holdings on the coast untouchable and would have likely ensured that the US would avoid attacking the Avalon Peninsula, but none of those ships you mentioned would be able to directly affect a battle in Toronto, or Kingston or Montreal. Even at Quebec City (where an Ocean based fleet of substantial size could reasonably operate) those ships would have been of limited usefulness (they would have virtually no room to maneuver in the St. Lawrence and would have been extremely vulnerable if the Rebels/US controlled the riverbanks). So again the real question here (if of course as TFSmith pointed out you can even engineer a US intervention in the first place) is how many troops the UK can quickly raise and deploy to British North America and hence how many key areas they can defend from the initial US and Canadian Rebel attacks. Afterwards, yes blockades and amphibious raids can begin to be felt and the UK can (if it chooses to) eventually mobilize a large force but if they lose most of Upper Canada and Lower Canada in the first few months of the war then British hopes for victory will diminish fast.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I think the point here is that, with the US very much reliant on both coasting and overseas trade, the British can use the weapon of blockade if the US decides to make it into a war. That's why I mentioned the USN (tiny) and the RN (vast).

It also means the SLOCs will be open pretty convincingly.

I'm focusing mainly on the sea here because the days of sail and shell are a period not often looked at - nor are steam, shell and wood, either.
 
But that is just it, the US isn't going toe to toe with the UK on an even footing in an attempt to seize territory with a population that is hostile to the US. In this situation they are backing a rebellion that is already in progress and any US troops entering the Canadas (particularly Lower Canada) under the mandate of helping to liberate them really would be viewed as friends and liberators by a lot of the population, not as invaders as they were in the American Revolution and the War of 1812. It is true the UK isn't fighting with France at this time, but that also means that they are not on a war footing and are not mobilized anywhere near the level they were in the Napoleonic Wars, so I am not even sure how much of an army the UK could raise and project across the Atlantic before the US and Canadian rebels had taken over most of the BNA colonies (some level headed analysis of the readily available force the UK could project across the Atlantic would be appreciated). Even if it is likely that the UK would successfully hold the Atlantic Provinces after the opening American offensive (key being the port of Halifax) where the British defenses are strongest and possibly Quebec City (which is heavily fortified and has a British garrison despite having plenty of Patriote sympathizers in the city itself), retaking the sparsely populated lost territory in the west (what is now Ontario) would be a monumental challenge. Also this is assuming that no European power or group of powers sees and exploits this opportunity as a chance to contain British power (ala the American Revolution). Certainly a British defeat isn't inevitable but it seems like the Americans would have some important factors in their favor during this 3rd invasion (or liberation) of Canada that they didn't have before.

We need to assume that there is a massive change in the makeup of the rebellion then. Historically the rebels were not even on the same page and had varying different goals and ideals which alienated them from popular support (anti-clericals rubbing shoulders with Catholic reform minded landowners does not a stable coalition make). Broadly speaking in Lower Canada it was confined to the "Six Counties" (Richelieu, Rouville, Saint-Hyacinthe, Chambly, Verchères and L'acadie) with perhaps 5,000 supporters in all being assembled.

Assuming Britain royally screws up administration of the colonies post 1816 and there is more discontent I can see a more stable rebel coalition emerging. If we then assume that the rebels don't alienate the Catholic Church and then their main spokesman (Papineau) does not discover sudden pressing business south of the border there's a much better chance for things to spread, especially if there's an early victory like Saint-Denis was OTL.

Assuming the uprising spreads from there we could see the British hole up in Montreal and wait for reinforcements from Quebec, maybe the rebels hurl back a hastily put together relief column and besiege Montreal while the British urgently dispatch for reinforcements.

In Upper Canada you probably still have the problem of the Loyalist militias outnumbering and being better prepared than the rebels since those who fought on the side of the Crown were overwhelmingly veterans of the 1812-15 conflict with more stomach for a fight than Mackenzies' farmers. However, while they might organize quickly they would lack the support of the regulars who historically all went east to deal with the uprising there.

Assuming then that Montreal surrenders to the rebels over the winter I could see a more vengeful US declaring for the rebels and mobilizing[1] to march on the loyal districts in Upper Canada and support a drive towards Quebec.

Historically the British mobilized some 10,000 men to put down the rebellion, I'm not sure how large the army at home was in 1838 but I would assume that double that number might be deployed (I'll take a look). I think the question would be whether the US can put enough men in to both pacify Upper Canada and to form a field army to aid the rebels march on Quebec.

[1] I'm assuming my idea of a more militant US after a harsher treaty in 1815 which would mean the US could mobilize men quicker to support the rebels against a British counter stroke.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
This is a Crimea-size British Army, very roughly speaking, though they've not adopted their Crimea weapons (no Minie rifles) and are line-and-skirmish infantry with percussion muskets. So yes, shaking loose another 10,000 seems feasible - maybe a bit more.


One interesting knock-on effect is that you might get the post-Crimea reforms early.
 
I think the point here is that, with the US very much reliant on both coasting and overseas trade, the British can use the weapon of blockade if the US decides to make it into a war. That's why I mentioned the USN (tiny) and the RN (vast).

It also means the SLOCs will be open pretty convincingly.

I'm focusing mainly on the sea here because the days of sail and shell are a period not often looked at - nor are steam, shell and wood, either.

Again, that is true but a blockade takes many months or even years to really bite hard and that's irrelevant if most of BNA is lost in the opening few months of the war (as opposed to the situation in 1812 where the invasions were repeatedly repulsed and the British were also on the offensive in certain regions like Michigan). Also, reliant as the US is on overseas trade, history shows that it can survive and fight effectively under Royal Navy blockade for an extended period of time numbering in years, not months (as opposed to an island like the UK which would suffer drastically if it actually faced a blockade itself), so the guns of the RN are a really good deterrent for war and a useful tool for a long, multi-year war but it is really the transport capability of the RN and overall force projection ability of the UK military at this time that are key to this conflict.
 
This is a Crimea-size British Army, very roughly speaking, though they've not adopted their Crimea weapons (no Minie rifles) and are line-and-skirmish infantry with percussion muskets. So yes, shaking loose another 10,000 seems feasible - maybe a bit more.


One interesting knock-on effect is that you might get the post-Crimea reforms early.


What would the logistics of projecting a Crimea sized army to North America be compared to what they were in OTL in the Crimean peninsula?

Also on a side note; how much would the British actually care about holding BNA? Would they be willing to deploy tens of thousands of soldiers to hold it or would they just write it off as not being worth the money (both in cost of waging war and loss of trans-Atlantic trade) to try and hold it by force? Does anyone know how the Colonies were viewed in the UK at this time early in the Victorian period (ie. central to British identity and prestige vs expendable assets)?
 
Also on a side note; how much would the British actually care about holding BNA? Would they be willing to deploy tens of thousands of soldiers to hold it or would they just write it off as not being worth the money (both in cost of waging war and loss of trans-Atlantic trade) to try and hold it by force? Does anyone know how the Colonies were viewed in the UK at this time early in the Victorian period (ie. central to British identity and prestige vs expendable assets)?

The timber industry was still quite important, the fur trade was still reasonably successful, and the basing and fishing rights of the Maritimes are important to the RN.

If it came to war Britain would fight, it would be an enormous embarrassment for the power which takes most of the credit for beating Napoleon to simply give up without a fight. Besides, there's the Loyalists they are honor bound to protect.

It wasn't until after the ACW historically that Britain gave up the idea of making a fight of it on the continent.
 
We need to assume that there is a massive change in the makeup of the rebellion then. Historically the rebels were not even on the same page and had varying different goals and ideals which alienated them from popular support (anti-clericals rubbing shoulders with Catholic reform minded landowners does not a stable coalition make). Broadly speaking in Lower Canada it was confined to the "Six Counties" (Richelieu, Rouville, Saint-Hyacinthe, Chambly, Verchères and L'acadie) with perhaps 5,000 supporters in all being assembled.

Assuming Britain royally screws up administration of the colonies post 1816 and there is more discontent I can see a more stable rebel coalition emerging. If we then assume that the rebels don't alienate the Catholic Church and then their main spokesman (Papineau) does not discover sudden pressing business south of the border there's a much better chance for things to spread, especially if there's an early victory like Saint-Denis was OTL.

Assuming the uprising spreads from there we could see the British hole up in Montreal and wait for reinforcements from Quebec, maybe the rebels hurl back a hastily put together relief column and besiege Montreal while the British urgently dispatch for reinforcements.

In Upper Canada you probably still have the problem of the Loyalist militias outnumbering and being better prepared than the rebels since those who fought on the side of the Crown were overwhelmingly veterans of the 1812-15 conflict with more stomach for a fight than Mackenzies' farmers. However, while they might organize quickly they would lack the support of the regulars who historically all went east to deal with the uprising there.

Assuming then that Montreal surrenders to the rebels over the winter I could see a more vengeful US declaring for the rebels and mobilizing[1] to march on the loyal districts in Upper Canada and support a drive towards Quebec.

Historically the British mobilized some 10,000 men to put down the rebellion, I'm not sure how large the army at home was in 1838 but I would assume that double that number might be deployed (I'll take a look). I think the question would be whether the US can put enough men in to both pacify Upper Canada and to form a field army to aid the rebels march on Quebec.

[1] I'm assuming my idea of a more militant US after a harsher treaty in 1815 which would mean the US could mobilize men quicker to support the rebels against a British counter stroke.

Yes these rebellions certainly are not on the level of something like the American Revolution or French Revolution (hence why they are historical footnotes) and the Upper Canada Rebellion was pretty pathetic in and of itself (note the story of the battle in Toronto in my first post) but they do serve as an important launchpad for a US mounted invasion. Firstly they would give the US government a way to rally public support (to free fellow colonials fighting against British tyranny) that they didn't have the previous times they invaded BNA. Secondly they would have local allies in the Canadas that would support them (not just the Rebels themselves but a good chunk of the populations, particularly in Lower Canada) which had previously been almost entirely hostile to the US invading forces. Upper Canada probably would have less support for the rebels (and hence more support for the British regulars and colonial militia) than Lower Canada but it is also a lot more vulnerable to US invasion (much less fortified and less populated then Lower Canada at this time) and one would think that with the British forces in Lower Canada fighting the much larger rebel forces there that an early American invasion could sweep through the South Ontario Peninsula fairly easily. I would also argue that a direct American military intervention would cause a significant change in the nature and makeup of the rebellion, particularly in Lower Canada where a large portion of the Francophone population sympathized with the Patriotes but didn't actively join them. With the US actively joining the fight on the Patriot side you would think they would be able to draw much more material support form the populous than in OTL. Of course an American invasion would likely have the reverse effect on some of the populous there and push them to side with the British, but this too would definitely lead to an escalation of the conflict (which is the point of this thread).

As you said in OTL the British really didn't have to do much to put down the Rebellions (mobilizing 10 000 regulars + local militia is peanuts), but if the Americans (w/wo in the support of a European power) decide to get involved, then 10 000 men isn't even enough to hold a fraction of the Canadas.

NOTE: To the credit of the British government at the time they reacted quite astutely in the aftermath of the Rebellions and made some major (and successful) changes to prevent them from occurring again (as opposed to the actions of other European Empires when faced with Colonial revolts- Looking at you Spain)
 
Last edited:
Top