ARW leads to FR?

Will there be an 18th century French Revolution without an American Revolution?


  • Total voters
    84
This is great; but could they settle the land freely, as their colonial charters said they couldL?

What the King giveth the King can taketh away.

In honesty putting forward the colonial charters as the basis as a moral right to have those lands is ridiculous, especially considering they extend across intentional boundaries in some cases.

And replaced it with English support, so that fur traders based in London could profit.

The British weren't supporting them to attack the colonists however, putting troops in the East and establishing the native reserve was designed to prevent just that.

This would have a ring of truth if members of Parliament hadn't discussed the fear of the colonists growing too widespread to control as part of their reason to support the Proclamation Act.

How many and how important was it to those?

Not to mention the fact that they were indeed correct in their fears.

Sure, but this was because the law was impossible to enforce. Besides, Britain hadn't enforced the tax on molasses, yet it suddenly chose to do so. How were the colonists to konw Britain wouldn't one day say the same thing?

Then that would be a problem in the future although doing inland taxes etc is exponentially more difficult than controlling the seas and ports.

This is a blatant double standard, since justice was no more blind in English courts at the time.

Really?

So British juries had an inbuilt desire to see people not pay their taxes, I doubt it since that would mean those in the Jury would have to pay more themselves in the final analysis.

Of course the British also ended up in Admiralty courts so it is neither here nor there (but of course the entire thing is a desire for special treatment for Americans).

The entire US, however, was not run by Sam Adams.

Indeed not but allies and a fair propaganda network (not to mention paid enforcers on the Mafia model) went a long way to winning him enough support to achieve his ends (although he failed miserably in the end).
 
What the King giveth the King can taketh away.

This is silly, and you know that as well as I do.

In honesty putting forward the colonial charters as the basis as a moral right to have those lands is ridiculous, especially considering they extend across intentional boundaries in some cases.

Why is it riduculous? They were legal charters signed by previous kings. If they are no longer valid, why should the American colonists trust thek ings word?

The British weren't supporting them to attack the colonists however, putting troops in the East and establishing the native reserve was designed to prevent just that.

That was certainly part of it; but the British troops actually expelled squatters across the proclamation line, some of whom arrived before the act was passed.

How many and how important was it to those?

Not to mention the fact that they were indeed correct in their fears.

This has the ring of a self-fulfilling prophecy; and enough people thought that way that Benjamin Franklin ended up writing a tract against the theory.

Really?

So British juries had an inbuilt desire to see people not pay their taxes, I doubt it since that would mean those in the Jury would have to pay more themselves in the final analysis.

Obviously not; but British courts often let people get away with breaking the law depending on politics, just like American.

Of course the British also ended up in Admiralty courts so it is neither here nor there (but of course the entire thing is a desire for special treatment for Americans).

Not at all. You guys should have also launched a revolution.

Indeed not but allies and a fair propaganda network (not to mention paid enforcers on the Mafia model) went a long way to winning him enough support to achieve his ends (although he failed miserably in the end).

Mafia mode?
 
Anyway, to get back on topic:

How likely is it that, sans the American Revolution, the Bourbons get involved in another messy war? The war of Bavarian succession? The partition of Poland? The Dutch Revolution in 1787? (Does that still happen?)
 
Not at all. You guys should have also launched a revolution.

we did, some years earlier-ended up cutting our king's head off, killed a bigger percentage of our population than in WW1, had social and economic 'problems' during and after (including witchhunts) and left a folk memory that played against a repeat
 
But then he was headstrong, and wasn't ahead in the polls. It was always heading that way...

Seriously though, he could have done - really it requires a certain level of political cunning on the part of the king, and Charlie just didn't have that. In fact he was a complete moron.

Headstrong but with a weak neck? (I know it's awful)

Charlie was a complete moron, agreed; Louis was not the sharpest tool on the rack either
 

Glen

Moderator
I have been thinking about this again of late, so I thought I'd bump the poll for further input.
 
I feel that it was ONE OF THE CAUSES but may have happened throughout...

Mr. T. Anderson is not the one to blame, but rather a Scottish man by the name of John Law. He ran the Bank of France and did an earlier version of sub-prime loans.

Guess what happened next... yep, recession.

Some theorists believed that he caused both the Mississippi bubble to collapse and the 2008-2009 recession from the grave, but that is giving him WAYYYY to much credit.
 
I think a plausible scenario is that the middle class, via the Third Estate, manages to get some concessions from the King at the expense of the nobility, while the working class stay screwed. Meanwhile, the spirit of standing up to governments and getting concessions eggs on the Patriots in Holland.
 
Top