What would be the ramifications of the colonies failing to achieve independence? Who would take control and how would it be governed, in the movie "The Patriot" Cornwallis comments that the new aristocracy will be the landholders, is this correct? What about military occupation?
American Revolution Failed
- Thread starter Arch-Angel
- Start date
There is a lot of talk about "ooh if the Redcoats win they'd've shipped us to concentration camps after taking away our guns." Not likely; even though the Royal Navy was the finest military machine in the time, the British Army was just a glorified militia no better than our own--Patriot or Loyalist.
Perhaps I'll use my British North America TL, as people have told me it is realistic:
The most plausible POD for a Tory victory would be for Washington to be captured after a failed attack on Trenton in 1776. Howe would be free to secure the Hudson, and Burgoyne would stay in Quebec, thus preventing Saratoga. The important thing is to _NOT_ let France, Holland or Spain get in the war; else a Patriot victory is assured.
The most surprising thing about a British victory is that the Americans will win independence anyway, that the Yankees "change their government," even though George Hanover is still their head of state. This America, though, is not a federation of 13 weak States, but 4 stronger, more economically independent Dominions: New England, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida. The West Indies and Canada become Dominions not too long after.
Perhaps I'll use my British North America TL, as people have told me it is realistic:
The most plausible POD for a Tory victory would be for Washington to be captured after a failed attack on Trenton in 1776. Howe would be free to secure the Hudson, and Burgoyne would stay in Quebec, thus preventing Saratoga. The important thing is to _NOT_ let France, Holland or Spain get in the war; else a Patriot victory is assured.
The most surprising thing about a British victory is that the Americans will win independence anyway, that the Yankees "change their government," even though George Hanover is still their head of state. This America, though, is not a federation of 13 weak States, but 4 stronger, more economically independent Dominions: New England, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida. The West Indies and Canada become Dominions not too long after.
Deja Vu
This topic was essentially discussed in the following fairly recent thread:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=3818
This topic was essentially discussed in the following fairly recent thread:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=3818
David S Poepoe
Banned
The British would work with the Loyalists as a means to establishing a new form of government. What I couldn't find now online, tho I've got a printout at home, was the name of the American Loyalist that suggested a form of government relatively close to Franklin's Albany Plan. I suspect its likely that the British may hang various rebel leaders, tho looking at the Great Mutiny for parallels is wrong. And there certainly wouldn't be any "Great Trek" by the most resolute Rebels into the interior of North America - thats AH pipe dreaming.
Why not have Lord Howe get off his a-- and capture Washington before he and the remnants of the Continental Army can even withdraw into New Jersey, let alone Pennsylvania?
David, by 1792 the US had over 300,000 people in the interior, primarily Kentucky. In fact, while the Revolution was raging the settlement of Kentucky went from nothing to over 10,000. Now given a real reason to flee, the US could well have put a much larger population there, and it is most unlikely that the British would be capable of fielding a large PEACE-TIME occupation force. Waterloo was fought because the Brits wouldn't even consider maintaining strong enough forces against Napoleon for just a single year after his first abdication.
A nastier issue is what happens when the US has been beaten, and the Second Revolution erupts during the Napoleonic Wars. It isn't hard to imagine the British giving in, or even surrendering Canada, just to free up sufficient forces for Europe.
David, by 1792 the US had over 300,000 people in the interior, primarily Kentucky. In fact, while the Revolution was raging the settlement of Kentucky went from nothing to over 10,000. Now given a real reason to flee, the US could well have put a much larger population there, and it is most unlikely that the British would be capable of fielding a large PEACE-TIME occupation force. Waterloo was fought because the Brits wouldn't even consider maintaining strong enough forces against Napoleon for just a single year after his first abdication.
A nastier issue is what happens when the US has been beaten, and the Second Revolution erupts during the Napoleonic Wars. It isn't hard to imagine the British giving in, or even surrendering Canada, just to free up sufficient forces for Europe.
Grimm Reaper said:
In my TL, there isn't a Second Revolution because the aim of the First Revolution had been met: effective independence from Britain, though remaining within the Empire. (There's an uprising over slavery, like the King's Chain Rebellion in Virginia and Florida, but that doesn't give rise to another full Revolution.)
There is increased settlement in Transappalachia, though the leading rebels must cross into Louisiana for sanctuary.
I'm developing an interesting TL where the Buonaparte Brothers land at New Orleans...
David S Poepoe said:
Joseph Galloway. A conservative from PA who urged the creation of an American Parliament which would act together with the British Parliament. When it came to matters regarding the American colonies, either body could veto the rulings of the other. That was Galloway's proposal at the First Continental Congress.