American Revolution fails before it begans

As a brazilian, i don't have many knowledge about the history of the USA as a native would have, but, in my country, there was a independece movement called Inconfidencia Mineira (Miner's Inconfidence), which happened in the region of Minas Gerais. It was never clear if they wanted to free all portuguese America or only Minas Gerais, but this conspiration had some similarities with the American Revolution (they were inspired by it, after all), as many members of the Inconfidencia were masons and the most important motivations for the conspiration were the increasing taxes and authoritarian laws made by the portuguese government. However, the movement was never put in practice, as they were denounced in 1789, before making any serious attempt of revolution. Most of the leaders and members of the Inconfidencia were exiled, and one of them, Joaquim José da Silva Xavier (known until today as Tiradentes), a military member, was executed .
So...could something like this happen with the American Revolution, with someone playing a early Benedict Arnold ? What would be the effects?
 
The American Revolution was such a diffuse thing, with leadership spread over such a large area that rounding up leadership in one fell swoop would probably be difficult. The easier way to avoid the revolution was for the Brits to avoid several self-inflicted political wounds that made support for the revolution strong.
 
I get the impression that the Portuguese ran a much tighter ship in Brazil than the British did in the Americas. Before the 1760s, salaries of all government officials in the British colonies in North America were paid by the colonial assemblies, and in two colonies the governors were elected. It was actually the attempt to impose some central control, such as actually collecting the customs duties, that led to the revolt. There was certainly no network of secret police and informers that could uncover something like the inconfidencia. If anything all the coercion was on the patriot side.

Another difference between the North American colonies and Brazil is that in North America there were both universities and printing presses, dating back to over a hundred years before 1776. It was only in the mid 1770s that wealthy people in Brazil started giving their sons university educations, by sending them to Portugal. Having North America develop more like Brazil is a fascinating alternative timeline, but the POD would have to be in the seventeenth century.
 
I mean, if you make George III a little more competent and a little less hot headed the whole thing probably would have blown over.
 
I get the impression that the Portuguese ran a much tighter ship in Brazil than the British did in the Americas. Before the 1760s, salaries of all government officials in the British colonies in North America were paid by the colonial assemblies, and in two colonies the governors were elected. It was actually the attempt to impose some central control, such as actually collecting the customs duties, that led to the revolt. There was certainly no network of secret police and informers that could uncover something like the inconfidencia. If anything all the coercion was on the patriot side.

Another difference between the North American colonies and Brazil is that in North America there were both universities and printing presses, dating back to over a hundred years before 1776. It was only in the mid 1770s that wealthy people in Brazil started giving their sons university educations, by sending them to Portugal. Having North America develop more like Brazil is a fascinating alternative timeline, but the POD would have to be in the seventeenth century.

About the "tighter ship", Portugal , different from Spain, didn't cared that much for their american colony until the XVIII century, because their most profitable investments were in the trade rotes in the east indias. So, Brazil was neglected by the metropolitan autorities, who tolerated the colonials evading taxes, slaving amerindians after it was made illegal, etc.
This treatment changed when Portugal began to lose power in Asia, and , conveniently , gold was finally found in Brazil , that the portuguese began to impose their authority in Brazil. (the Inconfidencia mineira happened during this epoque)
 

Lusitania

Donor
The Portuguese colonial empire went through two different stages. As you mention Ásia, then with losses to Dutch and later English shifted to Brazil. Then in 1822 when Brazil was lost to Africa.

The British on the other hand had concentrated on British North America and Carribean with everything east of Africa the responsibility of the British east India company. It was the loss of 13 colonies that led the British to invest in India and Asia.
 
As a brazilian, i don't have many knowledge about the history of the USA as a native would have, but, in my country, there was a independece movement called Inconfidencia Mineira (Miner's Inconfidence), which happened in the region of Minas Gerais. It was never clear if they wanted to free all portuguese America or only Minas Gerais, but this conspiration had some similarities with the American Revolution (they were inspired by it, after all), as many members of the Inconfidencia were masons and the most important motivations for the conspiration were the increasing taxes and authoritarian laws made by the portuguese government. However, the movement was never put in practice, as they were denounced in 1789, before making any serious attempt of revolution. Most of the leaders and members of the Inconfidencia were exiled, and one of them, Joaquim José da Silva Xavier (known until today as Tiradentes), a military member, was executed .
So...could something like this happen with the American Revolution, with someone playing a early Benedict Arnold ? What would be the effects?
A big difference here (not actually read up on Brazilian history myself so I'm basing this on your description) is that there wasn't any particularly big conspiracy to create an independent country. There was a continental congress that wasn't sanctioned by the British authorities where delegates elected by people from their colonies would discuss colonial issues, their membership wasn't secret and their main actions were in declaring boycotts and issuing petitions to the king to repeal unpopular acts. The actual war wasn't planned by anyone, it was just the result of events snowballing out of anyone's control, independence wasn't even the goal for most rebels until about a year after the war started. If Britain tried arresting members of the Continental Congress they'd be accelerating the path to war whilst being unable to take out patriot leadership in one swoop, and at the same time possibly sparking trouble at home as the whigs in Parliament were rather sympathetic to the American cause.
 
The American Revolution was such a diffuse thing, with leadership spread over such a large area that rounding up leadership in one fell swoop would probably be difficult. The easier way to avoid the revolution was for the Brits to avoid several self-inflicted political wounds that made support for the revolution strong.

A big difference here (not actually read up on Brazilian history myself so I'm basing this on your description) is that there wasn't any particularly big conspiracy to create an independent country. There was a continental congress that wasn't sanctioned by the British authorities where delegates elected by people from their colonies would discuss colonial issues, their membership wasn't secret and their main actions were in declaring boycotts and issuing petitions to the king to repeal unpopular acts. The actual war wasn't planned by anyone, it was just the result of events snowballing out of anyone's control, independence wasn't even the goal for most rebels until about a year after the war started. If Britain tried arresting members of the Continental Congress they'd be accelerating the path to war whilst being unable to take out patriot leadership in one swoop, and at the same time possibly sparking trouble at home as the whigs in Parliament were rather sympathetic to the American cause.

So, by your information, should the carrot instead of the stick be the best way for the british to stop the American Independence from happening since the beginning, accepting the colonials requests?

If so, would it totally butterfly the American independence or only delay it (perhaps to a more gradual way)? And the French Revolution?

Edit: also @9 Fanged Hummingbird, the Inconfidencia Mineira, even if was a conspiracy, was not exactly big. Its members were basically from the territory of Minas Gerais (one of the nowadays state of Brazil), which was the center of Brazil's golden rush . Including, there are some polemics about if the Inconfidentes wanted to make the entire Brazil independent or only Minas Gerais
 
Last edited:
I mean, if you make George III a little more competent and a little less hot headed the whole thing probably would have blown over.
George III wasn't the one passing laws to tax the colonies. Most of the early anger at Great Britain was originally aimed at Parliament.
 
George III wasn't the one passing laws to tax the colonies. Most of the early anger at Great Britain was originally aimed at Parliament.

Yep. It wasn't till the double whammy of the Proclamation of Rebellion and Common Sense that led to independence-seeking and anger at G3. Till then, I remember a book saying that even Washington preferred to call the Redcoats the Parliamentarian Army and the Olive Branch Petition was specifically sent to George III to ask him to mediate between colonists and Parliament.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Yep. It wasn't till the double whammy of the Proclamation of Rebellion and Common Sense that led to independence-seeking and anger at G3. Till then, I remember a book saying that even Washington preferred to call the Redcoats the Parliamentarian Army and the Olive Branch Petition was specifically sent to George III to ask him to mediate between colonists and Parliament.

The mediation and meeting of George Washington with King George was the POD for the “two Georges” novel by turtledove set in a BNA including USA and Canada.
 
Yep. It wasn't till the double whammy of the Proclamation of Rebellion and Common Sense that led to independence-seeking and anger at G3. Till then, I remember a book saying that even Washington preferred to call the Redcoats the Parliamentarian Army and the Olive Branch Petition was specifically sent to George III to ask him to mediate between colonists and Parliament.

I was just reading about how Hamilton's early writings were about how colonial charters put the colonies under the control of the king but not the parliament, so there was a lot of the standard "the king's fine but the rest of the government sucks!" rhetoric floating around. Not sure how much of it was serious and how much was just rhetoric.
 
Top