What would have happened if the English had established an American nobility in its North American colonies in the years just prior to the American Revolution. Provided that the revolution still happened, what would the reaction have been like?
American Nobility and the American Revolution
- Thread starter KJPedersen
- Start date
One often ignored tidbit about the American revolution is that, in the technical sense, it wasn't a revolution. It wasn't a rebellion of the masses against the upper class, despite the way some texts portray it today. It was more of a political division, not social upheavel. Many of the leaders of the Revolution were the wealthy upper class of the colonies. Washington, Hancock, and others were effectivly the american aristocracy. I had a source somewhere which claims that many of the founding fathers were even distant descendents of Edward III, but that claim should probably be taken with a grain of salt.
The ent effects will be limited. Either the aristocrats are deposed and stripped of their titles during the revolution and are never reestablished, or we get a republic which has a nobility of limited power. Probably just boils down to Congress giving out titles for exceptional achievements in that case. I can see how this could have far reaching changes, but it is hard to imagine how to plausibly bring it about.
IIRC what Americans who were granted any sort of title (and some where in OTL) moved back to Britain, since the title was invariably to land in Britain.
You could respond by trying to have the Crown create the same kind of landed nobility in the colonies, but that would be an even more direct breach of the powers of the colonial assemblies (if done by act of Parliament). What's more, land doesn't hold the same kind of value in the American colonies that it did in Britain because there's no shortage of land in BNA. Hence, I doubt that what lords you might create would have vested economic interests in their land, rather than other sorts of wealth. Instead you might see the US trend toward the establishment of a monarchy of some sorts or you might simply see some nobles shred their patents. It does inject a bit more of a social revolutionary aspect to the Revolution, but probably because it would cause further tensions between 'New Light' Christians and old line Anglicans (which I'd imagine the nobles would be). But I doubt things evolve to the extent that those categories co-incide.
As an aside, I think the point about the American Revolution not being a Revolution is largely semantic. Who said revolutions are supposed to be about one section of society overthrowing another? I could just as easily suppose that such things should only be construed as civil wars. (Or perhaps the answer is that a civil war is an unsuccessful revolution,
) I agree that there's not a social aspect of the Revolution, but the colonists thought that embracing Republicanism was a big change. Furthermore, on would argue that the revolutionary part of the Revolution was the change that precipitated it: the perception of commonality amongst the colonists, the creation of American indentity, the suspicision of Great Britain. Pretty big changes, all accelerated or crystalized by the events of 1775-1783.
You could respond by trying to have the Crown create the same kind of landed nobility in the colonies, but that would be an even more direct breach of the powers of the colonial assemblies (if done by act of Parliament). What's more, land doesn't hold the same kind of value in the American colonies that it did in Britain because there's no shortage of land in BNA. Hence, I doubt that what lords you might create would have vested economic interests in their land, rather than other sorts of wealth. Instead you might see the US trend toward the establishment of a monarchy of some sorts or you might simply see some nobles shred their patents. It does inject a bit more of a social revolutionary aspect to the Revolution, but probably because it would cause further tensions between 'New Light' Christians and old line Anglicans (which I'd imagine the nobles would be). But I doubt things evolve to the extent that those categories co-incide.
As an aside, I think the point about the American Revolution not being a Revolution is largely semantic. Who said revolutions are supposed to be about one section of society overthrowing another? I could just as easily suppose that such things should only be construed as civil wars. (Or perhaps the answer is that a civil war is an unsuccessful revolution,
) I agree that there's not a social aspect of the Revolution, but the colonists thought that embracing Republicanism was a big change. Furthermore, on would argue that the revolutionary part of the Revolution was the change that precipitated it: the perception of commonality amongst the colonists, the creation of American indentity, the suspicision of Great Britain. Pretty big changes, all accelerated or crystalized by the events of 1775-1783.
Many leaders of the revolution were aristocrats but Nationalism was the cause of the revolution.
ninebucks
Banned
Caecilius Calvert, the second Baron Baltimore? Who died over a century before the American Revolution?
My point is that, despite the misconceptions of some people today, the revolution was not about social upheavel. It did little to actually change who was in power in the colonies themselves; it simply gave the fledgling United States self-government.
Revolution = social upheaval is a narrow definition. I would argue it's also slightly arbitrary. But it's mostly a semantic difference.
How a WI that takes me back to my Masters...
Those arguing that the ARW isn't a revoltion are techincially correct. The American "Revolution" is more correctly, the 2nd British Civil War, the fight was at the start over the intereptation of the British constitution in the 1770s.
The 13 Colonies considered themself full Englishmen, with all the rights that entailed (actually this is about the only thing thru most of the War that every one, freedmen to landowner to shop keeper, et. al. did agree on). Specifically, the right to property, and due process.
The government in London, did not view them as Englishmen, nor did they the Colonies as "consitutional" enities or the leadership (the land owners and businessmen) as North America's equal to the those who made up the Lords and Commons.
So the Congress (and as stated almost all the Colonists, few loyalist disageed that Britain was wrong they just didn't want to separate from King and Country) view this as voilating their rights, no one asked them (or at least their leadership), and react to maintain what they saw as the status quo, i.e a Civil War.
Now it was revolutionary, once the the independence aspect was added, no one han done that before.
Could "titles" have changed that, do the titles come with seats in the Lords? And do the counties get Commons seats? And do the lands come with the revenue streams, that created loyalty to the keep of the titles (the King and Commons) I still doubt it. As said land was for the taking in North America, and you had to work (yes, even the owners) to make it pay.
The ARW was going to happen, London never fully understood what they had in North America, and the two societies were growing just too different.
Those arguing that the ARW isn't a revoltion are techincially correct. The American "Revolution" is more correctly, the 2nd British Civil War, the fight was at the start over the intereptation of the British constitution in the 1770s.
The 13 Colonies considered themself full Englishmen, with all the rights that entailed (actually this is about the only thing thru most of the War that every one, freedmen to landowner to shop keeper, et. al. did agree on). Specifically, the right to property, and due process.
The government in London, did not view them as Englishmen, nor did they the Colonies as "consitutional" enities or the leadership (the land owners and businessmen) as North America's equal to the those who made up the Lords and Commons.
So the Congress (and as stated almost all the Colonists, few loyalist disageed that Britain was wrong they just didn't want to separate from King and Country) view this as voilating their rights, no one asked them (or at least their leadership), and react to maintain what they saw as the status quo, i.e a Civil War.
Now it was revolutionary, once the the independence aspect was added, no one han done that before.
Could "titles" have changed that, do the titles come with seats in the Lords? And do the counties get Commons seats? And do the lands come with the revenue streams, that created loyalty to the keep of the titles (the King and Commons) I still doubt it. As said land was for the taking in North America, and you had to work (yes, even the owners) to make it pay.
The ARW was going to happen, London never fully understood what they had in North America, and the two societies were growing just too different.