British without American Revolution

Which one is Britain Stronger

  • Tolerate Townshend Acts

    Votes: 18 72.0%
  • Fends off Rebels and French

    Votes: 7 28.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Let's consider two different scenarios.

One is that the 13 colonies don't mind the Townshend Acts with a 1764 POD doing something on public opinion. I think someone in OTL told the British that the colonists hated direct taxes and this was the solution. Well, obviously that someone was a liar or clueless. Anyways, in TTL, it's tolerated with little more than annoyances, except maybe in Boston. Therefore, the American Revolution doesn't happen.

The next one is that the American Revolution does happen, but doesn't really work. POD is 1777, with the French joining in earlier than OTL. However, the British win at Saratoga, inflicting triple the losses they suffer and completing the Albany campaign (making the French look pretty stupid for jumping on the proverbial sinking ship). They also smash the French navy in the English Channel (no, not the invasion of England thread, just naval battles). By 1780, most of the colonies submitted to Britain, giving token payment and oaths of loyalty in exchange for pardons of most of the rebellion except the most egregious rabble rouses and partisans (most Continental Army and even militia were marked differently than civilians and fought like actual soldiers until the time came to run). France has to peace out with some concessions to the British and I can't be bothered to think of the specifics, you can make it up.

In which case does the British crown end up having a stronger influence on the world? The OTL British Empire classic is considered to contain India, that's why the height of the British power is considered post Revolution.

In both of these cases they are left in charge of a large grumbling population across from the Atlantic. In the first case, there is no actual rebellion (or maybe just one in Boston, but obviously Boston vs Britain is a short fight), but the question of North American wartime contribution to the treasury is left unresolved (OTL Townshend Acts specifically were earmarked towards things like colonial judges or stuff not related to war). The latter case, lots of loyalist property was torched by the rebels and a large of money was spent putting down the rebellion. In both cases, they look less impressive as a nation than they did coming out of their win from the Seven Years War.
 
I think re the second POD the crucial question then becomes- has The French Revolution been butterflied away? I would say not as everything that brought it on IOTL
would still exist in this ATL. Britain here
would have been in an even stronger
position to fight the wars growing out of
TFR & probably would have smashed Napoleon earlier than they did IOTL. The
resulting peace settlement would thus have
been even more favorable to Britain than it
was IOTL. This, in this POD, the answer is
yes.
 
I think re the second POD the crucial question then becomes- has The French Revolution been butterflied away? I would say not as everything that brought it on IOTL
would still exist in this ATL. Britain here
would have been in an even stronger
position to fight the wars growing out of
TFR & probably would have smashed Napoleon earlier than they did IOTL. The
resulting peace settlement would thus have
been even more favorable to Britain than it
was IOTL. This, in this POD, the answer is
yes.

Odd formatting. Some of your line breaks are in the middle of sentences! The last part in particular is hard to read.

OK... I have no idea if the French Revolution gets butterflied away.

Without the ARW, the French are on schedule reach the same level of unsustainable debt 3 decades after OTL if they spend a constant amount and the harvests are historical. However, if they have more money to spend, they might blow it off anyways (spending more than OTL) and not try to trim down until it's clear they are running out. If they blow it off, they'll hit the same level as OTL debt merely a few years later. In the case where the British crush the rebels at Saratoga followed by moping up operations and demolish the French's English Channel and Atlantic fleets, the French are actually still better off financially than OTL. Replacing the Ships of Line isn't cheap (especially compared to the British's costs to make ships), but the French have less invested in their navy than the British do (a TPK on a navy is much harder on Britain). As a result, the loss of their fleet will be painful, but actually less than spending money in a full scale war for OTL's longer war!

On the other hand, if they run out of money in a year with plentiful harvests, maybe the Third Estate would only grumble at being told to pay more taxes, butterflying away the French Revolution.

If the French Revolution does happen, it is probably going to get beaten without Napoleon. His career may or may not be butterflied, I have no idea about Napoleon.

If neither French Revolution or Napoleon is butterflied, then Britain's choices are to unite with Austria to beat him back or face a Napoleonic Europe (they tried the first in OTL, they ended up doing the second). The colonials wouldn't be much use in Europe since the militia aren't trained to march far and the British found out in the War of Austrian Succession that colonials who volunteered for Caribbean operations tended to die to diseases at sea (not the tropical ones, I mean just on the ship before they went south). Apparently the homeland British Army recruits are a bit more tolerant of being crammed together on a ship.

If the French Revolution ends in an early crush, wouldn't the Austrians be more likely to dictate terms? Their royal girl was mistreated by the rebels and the House of Hannover has no direct family risked by the revolution, so it seams that the Austrians and not the British would dictate terms, unless somehow Austria gets overrun before Britain makes a comeback like... OTL. Which was not a quick crush, but a prolonged series of wars.
 

Md139115

Banned
I think someone in OTL told the British that the colonists hated direct taxes and this was the solution. Well, obviously that someone was a liar or clueless.

It was Ben Franklin, speaking to Parliament.

He later admitted it wasn't one of his better moves.
 
Sorry about the formatting Alex- I'll work on
improving it.

You make a lot of good points here. Let me
just say that if, in this ATL, the ARW comes
to an end in 1780, the French will still, I bet,
have spent enough $ to produce(or help
produce)the financial problems that so
helped to bring on TFR(I admit I don't have
any exact figures @ my fingertips- if some-
one does, please bring them out, even if they prove me wrong!)
 
You make a lot of good points here. Let me just say that if, in this ATL, the ARW comesto an end in 1780, the French will still, I bet,have spent enough $ to produce(or help

Saving 12.5% off on a war (a conservative estimate I made based on assumption of their large naval losses) should help their position, but somehow... I think you're right. Anyways, so what do you think? Napoleon gets butterflied away or not? If he doesn't why do you think the House of Hannover instead of the House of Hapsburg is calling the shots on France's restoration?
 

Md139115

Banned
well our first scenario, he's right. In the next one, he's also wrong like OTL.

Well, I simplify.

The leading figures of the Revolution pre-shooting saw the colonies as political entities in personal union with the British crown with some degree of defense and foreign policy subordinated to HM's Government. Sort of like the Electorate of Hanover at the time. John Adams, I believe, made the argument that Parliament's authority began/ended as far as the colonies were concerned at the low tide line. Everything on the land side was colonial law, everything sea side was Parliament via maritime law enforced by the Royal Navy.

It is worth mentioning that Parliament really did not have much say over colonial affairs on the ground for nearly all of the pre-Revolution period. British officials assigned to the colonies were payed for by appropriations by the colonial legislatures; a system that the colonists loved because the officials did not want to mess with their paychecks. Parliament hated it, and decided to reassert control of the purse strings while this is all going on.

What Ben Franklin did was he tried to thread the needle by arguing that the colonists were never going to accept direct taxation (as Parliament had no jurisdiction in their eyes) but they could accept indirect taxation as that would be in Parliament's demense and go towards the RN and all that.

Parliament took his argument and ran with it. They imposed the taxes on imported goods, and, as you mentioned, earmarked it to pay the salaries of their officials. They could then turn to the colonials witha straight face and say "why are you complaining? You're now paying less direct taxes (since the legislatures no longer have to make appropriations), the money is going to the British state budget (which helps defray some of the expenses of guarding you on the high seas), and the goods we're taxing are still cheaper than the Dutch crap we know you're smuggling."

Ben Franklin is actually one of the first recognized masters of chess. Yet even he forgot that most cardinal of rules: Never try to be more clever than an English bureaucrat.

EDIT: Clarified based on below.
 
Last edited:
What Ben Franklin did was he tried to thread the needle by arguing that the colonists were never going to accept direct taxation (as Parliament had no jurisdiction in their eyes) but they could accept indirect taxation as that would be in Parliament's demense and go towards the RN and all that.

Parliament called his bluff. They imposed the taxes on imported goods, and, as you mentioned, earmarked it to pay the salaries of their officials. They could then turn to the colonials witha straight face and say "why are you complaining? You're now paying less direct taxes (since the legislatures no longer have to make appropriations), the money is going to the British state budget (which helps defray some of the expenses of guarding you on the high seas), and the goods we're taxing are still cheaper than the Dutch crap we know you're smuggling."

Bluff? Townshend actually thought this would be acceptable to the colonists.

But regardless of what was going on in OTL...

In the first situation, the colonists don't mind too much about taxes on imported goods as long as they are used to pay for the colonial infrastructure. That said, they aren't happy about it, just not hating it so much. Unless you're a smuggler of course. And to minimize my POD, I'll even let Boston complain. How do you think Britain fairs? The wartime contribution to the treasury is an unanswered question.
 

Md139115

Banned
Bluff? Townshend actually thought this would be acceptable to the colonists.

Yeah, you're right. "Bluff" is incorrect, more like covering everything from all angles in a smug manner so the only thing left to the Colonials is simmering rage.
 
Yeah, you're right. "Bluff" is incorrect, more like covering everything from all angles in a smug manner so the only thing left to the Colonials is simmering rage.

Anyways, in which TL do you think the British are better off? Explain if you think @UCB79 is right about the possibility of them coming better off after the French Revolution than OTL (I assume Austria might avoid OTL humiliation if the French are crushed early...). if you don't know what he was leading to just lend me your thoughts on these the originally mentioned possibility.
 

Deleted member 97083

I don't see what would cause the colonists to tolerate the Townshend Acts. But, ultimately the Thirteen Colonies were too developed and populated to accept mercantilism, so the British Empire would be more powerful if they defeated the rebellion.

As long as the British hold the colonies until the 1840s, when the British realized industrialization created its own form of economic vassalization of export-focused areas, meaning mercantilism was no longer necessary to gain profit from the empire, leading them to establish free trade, then they'll keep the colonies after that. But the British won't get rid of duties, tariffs, and other taxes on the colonies until that point, meaning that grievance will always be there, so there will be a revolution that they have to defeat.
 

Md139115

Banned
Anyways, in which TL do you think the British are better off? Explain if you think @UCB79 is right about the possibility of them coming better off after the French Revolution than OTL (I assume Austria might avoid OTL humiliation if the French are crushed early...). if you don't know what he was leading to just lend me your thoughts on these the originally mentioned possibility.

Look, the British government was in massive debt after the Seven Years War and fighting in the Revolution only made it worse. Only money from India and some sound management from Pitt (the younger) and Co. averted a French-style economic disaster. Having to garrison an occupation force in the Colonies postwar would be a nightmare.

In my mind, the only plausible POD is one that butterflies away the Revolution. I'm not of the opinion that toleration of the Townshend Acts would be enough though. Really, by 1764, there's only two moves that the British government could make to avoid the Revolution. The first is grant the colonies representation in Parliament. The second is to actually work with the colonial legislatures and giving them a clear role in the "constitution" of the British Empire. The former is flat out impossible, the latter is something only a far-sighted Whig (Pitt the elder) could work out.
 
the colonials aren't going to accept any taxes that are intended to send money to the mother country. Doesn't matter what lipstick you put on that pig.

In the other scenario, France's fleet has been modernized/strengthened precisely with a conflict (same timeframe) with Britain in mind. It isn't likely to be destroyed so easily. Once, the French are piping money/ supplies in, which they'll still do even if the fleet is destroyed, the rebels aren't going to be easily put down.

Neither scenario is likely.

In the very limited set of choices presented:

Let's see - colonials that remain (mostly) at peace, and revenue coming in.

or

colonials rise up in rebellion with the support of a foreign country. This entails spending lots of money and manpower, both during the war and afterwards.

In either case, the presumption is that trade still goes forth in the mercantile fashion, and you more or less end up at the same point.

hmmm. make money and maintain control, or piss money away fighting a war/maintaining the peace afterwards. which one is best? It's a difficult decision, but I have to go with make money for 100, Alex.
 
We need to keep in mind that taxes could get pretty high. On one of those Tony Robinson walking episodes, it mentioned Cornwall as being a haven for smuggling because of high tariffs and taxes. Including a tax on salt that was twenty times its cost. And of course the Stamp Act is liable to get everyone with a printing press angry, and I think the literacy-rate was higher in some colonies than in England.

Now, if there is no war then the British don't have the high deficit they got from the Revolution, even if they still have one from the previous war. Giong o still end up being issues about representation, given all the rotten and pocket boroughs taking up a third of Parliament. Could be problems with Dissinters, and perhaps we see people continuously emigrating from England to go with their correligious. May be a lot less Italians, Germans, etc as the years go on. And there's is the issue of profit. I think this will end up to hurt the British pocketbooks. After the War of Independence there was no real attempt to regain the colonies. It was far cheaper to let them expand and take care of themselves. American factories, civic bonds, railroads, canals, mines, etc were all investment in the next century and a half for private investors and large companies. Safe, sound, secure. Let the Americans act as the boarding house of the world and meld people into being, while not really British, no worse than the lower classes of Great Britain. Made a fantastic safety valve for both excess population and dissidents, even though early on the British past laws to raise the cost of going to the US because the dispossessed Crofters and peasants thrown from their land might go to America, rather than stay as near virtual slaves farming seaweed for landowners. Plus you get the Americans producing load of cotton using slave labor, while the British made sure to patrol the Atlantic to stop the slave trade, also starving Spanish, Portuguese, and French colonies of new forced labor.

And there is not to mention issues of balances of power, as the Americans could fight the Spanish, Mexicans, Tribes, Hawaiins, Berbers, whoever, and the other countries of Europe wouldn't close ranks to try and take them down. Why should they? A country that fought for independence, was loaded with Irishmen, and generally mocked kings was hardly going to be considered some unofficial British colony, so the British didn't need to make excuses to Asians, Europeans, Latin Americans, or their own public and Parliament. They could just tsk tsk and wait to invest some more in private. And then there is the Monroe Doctrine and such. Mostly backed by the British. Nearly the whole of the Spanish empire, breaking into multiple pieces and becoming republics, to never reenter personal unions with Habsburgs or Bourbons. All those cuontries, and the British could know trade with them. And really, who else had the ships, ports, money, and merchandise to go over their and get what they wanted? And then we can go to the dominions, and how the US showed both the risks of pressing too hard as well as the rewards of letting people govern themselves and expand outwards and their own momentum.

Long story short, North America and South America were basically open for the British to come in and buy what they wanted, with the added bonus of not needing to come in to fix things like they did in Africa and Asia, where many countries followed pleas of merchants to come in (might just be a clause bel) ending up with the British taxpayers forking out so that some companies get monopolies. Kind of the same in India, where the EIC got Redcoats and the Royal Navy occasnally backing them up, with the profits of getting to collect taxes in Bengal and various monopolies help the EIC buy or bribe MPs.
 
Clandango,
Good post. I've seen it said by far wiser heads than mine, that the colonies going free was a very good thing for the British.

The ability (by either the Americans or British) to use and abuse, or mutually benefit, the Spanish colonies are separate from the American Revolution. that depends on whether, the French revolution is butterflied, goes differently, or OTL.
 
Clandango,
Good post. I've seen it said by far wiser heads than mine, that the colonies going free was a very good thing for the British.

The ability (by either the Americans or British) to use and abuse, or mutually benefit, the Spanish colonies are separate from the American Revolution. that depends on whether, the French revolution is butterflied, goes differently, or OTL.
Indeed. I typed so much that I forgot to clarify that. Either way, if British have a huge empire in North America outside off some forests in Canada and various islands in the Caribbean, then any independent state might think annexation was on the table for them. And the British would have to do something, as they wouldn't want the Spanish and French ever get too close and if they lose a colony for a little bit they might just take it back. Without the Napoleonic wars we don't get the long line of insults by the Bourbons and Bonapartes discrediting the idea that there truly was any dynastic claim left to Madrid (thus making the freed states unofficial enemies to Spain and France), nor do we even get the British Royal Family dropping their claim to France. Plus we don't have the British getting the Cape nor Anglos getting and colonizing the Mississippi basin. I imagine the Spanish wouldn't use it much in this world.
 
the anglos will have, and develop the eastern Miss valley. The Spanish belatedly started to develop the western side. With a different world, IF they get enough time (decades), they might not do much, but they'll probably do enough to keep a Spanish flair to it. Sans the French Rev, the Spanish, while in decline, will still have enough oomph to repel the Americans, unless the British back the Americans. If Spain and Britain are on decent terms in Europe, the Brits probably maintain neutrality. Spain/Louisiana-New Spain only backed down to US in late 1790's because of British backing while Spain was an enemy of Britain and had big troubles on the European front.
 
Top