Bunker Hill Goes Horribly Wrong

[plantagenet]

Fizzled/Averted American Revolution

The other ARW TL is not shaping up how I wanted and the points raised have been good ones. So I am going to start over in a new thread.

I am going back to basics on this and will say up front my mission is to end up with a totally British North America - i.e. the AR either fizzles before we hit the point of no return, or, more likely, is averted entirely.

 

[Tielhard]

How can you call this thread:"Bunker Hill Goes Horribly Wrong"? From a British perspective, from a loyal colonial perspective, from an Amerindian perspective the proposed POD is a spiffingly excellent result. Only the traitorous colonists could possibly regard the result you suggest being "Horribly Wrong".

 

[Rick Robinson]

How can you call this thread:"Bunker Hill Goes Horribly Wrong"? From a British perspective, from a loyal colonial perspective, from an Amerindian perspective the proposed POD is a spiffingly excellent result. Only the traitorous colonists could possibly regard the result you suggest being "Horribly Wrong".

LOL

But to the main point, I confess to not knowing my ARW history well enough to know whether this would put effective finis to the rebellion. (Incidentally, wasn't the surprise rebel success not on Bunker Hill itself but on nearby Breed's Hill? Something ISTR from long-ago reading.)

However, weren't some of the other early warlike encounters - such as the "shot heard 'round the world" - not actually colonial victories, but still had a big political impact? The British forces may have been in the position of too few firefighters trying to put out too many brushfires during a Santa Ana.

The underlying question seems to be, at what point did colonial unrest spiral up to the point where it could no longer be contained short of a major military effort? Just prior to that point is the last POD for a "Revolution fizzles" outcome, as distinct from a "Revolution crushed" outcome.

-- Rick

 

[Weapon M]

There was a thread, maybe on the old board, about ARW not getting up to speed ever, and some revolutionaries heading westward.

I am not so sure that Bunker Hill would doom the revolution.

 

[plantagenet]

some revolutionaries heading westward.

I am not so sure that Bunker Hill would doom the revolution.

I have never understood why revolutionaries would go west - they were almost all city folk, not frontiersmen at all. They are going to what, form a democratic republic in the middle of a wilderness in which they cannot even feed themselves.

I don't know that Bunker Hill would doom the Revolution; I may need to dig deeper to avert the negative results sure to come of a crushed Revolution. Even in June 1775 there was the Second Continental Congress, and the Continental Army had been formed two days before the battle. So the delegates to the Congress could not exactly just go back to their old lives, not after Lexington/Concord. I may need to go back as far as the Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770 or even the 1760s. My ultimate goal, and I WILL succeed eventually, is to have a lasting British North America including the USA. I am coming to realize that this means an averted ARW - the government in power in London in the 1770s would have reacted to any kind of rising, however quickly put down, with violence and probably purges of the colonial elites. Best to avoid the Revolution entirely.

This is no easy feat, either, however. Perhaps William Pitt the Elder returns to the Premiership in the late 1760s or early 1770s - he was America's best friend throughout his career and even after his political alliance crumbled, his oratorical power remained undiminished. His last appearance in the Lords was in 1778, so he could pull this off, time-wise. I will look into this and see if it is feasible. I will not start a new thread - I will just continue on this one and hope people find it.

 

[Mike Stearns]

There was a thread, maybe on the old board, about ARW not getting up to speed ever, and some revolutionaries heading westward.

I am not so sure that Bunker Hill would doom the revolution.

I could see that. The Founding Fathers try to revolt against British rule, but the British are too strongly entrenched on the east coast, so the revolutionaries start heading west and build their republic on the Great Plains and on the West Coast.

 

[Rick Robinson]

I may need to go back as far as the Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770 or even the 1760s. My ultimate goal, and I WILL succeed eventually, is to have a lasting British North America including the USA. I am coming to realize that this means an averted ARW - the government in power in London in the 1770s would have reacted to any kind of rising, however quickly put down, with violence and probably purges of the colonial elites. Best to avoid the Revolution entirely.

That would be my thinking. At least to get the sort of British North America you're probably looking for - one that is synergistic to Britain, not one that Britain would eventual have to become a garrison state to hold onto.

AH has a burden that OTL doesn't have: It has to be not only possible but plausible, meaning in accordance with the way history typically works.

This is no easy feat, either, however. Perhaps William Pitt the Elder returns to the Premiership in the late 1760s or early 1770s ...

I will not start a new thread - I will just continue on this one and hope people find it.

Can you use the Edit Post feature to change the thread title?

I once read a book review - alas, I don't recall the book being reviewed - that said the talk around London coffeehouses at the end of the Seven Years' War was that Britain should return Canada to France instead of St. Kitts. Why? Because with the French ejected from North America, there was no threat to hold the colonies in line.

This was the basic conundrum. The British desire for the colonies to pay a share of the common freight of imperial defense was inherently reasonable, but their timing was incredibly stupid. They sent the bill for locking the barn after the horse was safely back in its stall and the barn door repaired.

I don't know the history of developments between the Seven Years' War and the Revolution, but the coffeehouse story implies that a fair number of British people realized the problem. I don't know just what developments would have brought in a leadership more willing to cash that reality check. Even more to the point, I don't know how many people in political circles understood the problem.

Put another way, was British policy leading to the Revolution one of those incredibly stupid things like Wilhelm II antagonizing Britain, or a series of fairly reasonable decisions that only looked disastrous when the hole was already too deep to get back out?

-- Rick

 

[DuQuense]

1759 Prince Fredrick Does Not get hit in the head by a cricket ball, He does not die.
1760 George II dies, Fredrick becomes King, Reappoints Pitt as PM. {His Father disliked Pitt, So Fredrick does like him}

1761 Pitt returns Britain's Focus to the Colonies, [Caribbean] away from Europe [Let those silly Europeans fight among themselves]
1762 Britain Captures Panama and Cuba, as well as the Philippines,
1763 just before the end of the War Britain captures some French West Indies Islands.

With the wealth of the West Indies Captured Britain, has no need for, New Taxes on the NA Colonies, and with Pitt to guide him, King Fredrick take a more Reasonable Approach to Governing the Colonies.

 

[Dave Howery]

uh... might I point out that the rebels technically lost at Bunker Hill, although they inflicted huge casulties on the Brits.... the only way it could have gone worse would be to inflict more casulties on the Continentals... which would hardly doom the rebellion...

 

[Dave Howery]

as I've pointed out in similar threads several times already, the only way to keep the colonies British is for the government to take more of an interest in the colonies from the very beginning... tax and tarriff collections were a joke before the war... plus, the Brits simply ignored the colonies and let the colonists run their own affairs for waaaay too long... if the Brits had taken control from the very beginning, established proper taxes that would actually be collected (so they'd be used to it) and made a real effort to protect them from the French and their native allies (instead of the spasmodic back-and-forth troop movements), the colonists would have stayed true blue Brits for a whole lot longer...

 

[plantagenet]

I have read that Frederick, Prince of Wales, died of a burst abscess in his lung, not a blow to the head, and that his death was in 1751, not 1759, so that is out.

It is true that the rebels lost at Bunker (Breed’s) Hill, but the British victory was pyrrhic and it emboldened the Americans by showing them the kind of damage they were capable of. If the redcoats had defeated the rebels quickly and with seeming ease, that would take some of the wind out of their sails. But it is moot now, since I am going further back in time.

I am also inclined to agree that one would have to go back to 1607 to really solidify the relationship between the colonies and make a super-Canada, but that would create a totally different world from OTL. If I can pull off a POD post-FIW to avert the revolution, which is tough but doable, the latter periods will be closer to OTL, though still, of course, different in its own ways.

Billy Pitt’s MO was to harness the strong familiar sentiment held by the colonists for Britain to further the interests of the Empire, but by asking for volunteer troops and requesting the assemblies to vote taxes themselves rather than impotently insisting he had the right to demand those things. The levels of colonial troops serving in the occupied territories in 1761 and 1762, after the war was over and the enemy beaten, in icy forts with relatively little desertion or mutiny, shows the colonials were eager to support the Empire – they just saw themselves as partners, albeit junior partners, in the Empire, not as subjects.

Parliament wanted to assert authority over the colonies and to justify that authority they convinced themselves they already had it and it was unlawfully being kept from them; in a way, they perceived the colonies as already in a kind of rebellion by not being sufficiently accepting of such tax Acts as the Stamp Act, Quartering Acts and Sugar Act. These reactions were elicited by the strong-arm tactics of later administrations; there were no such reactions against the requests for aid from Pitt during the FIW. So to me, it seems the key to unlocking a revolution-less BNA is to make the treatment of America more like it was during the FIW. Maybe instead of demanding the colonial assemblies fund a large peacetime garrison, Parliament would request that the several assemblies voluntarily contribute to the forts within their borders.

Particularly illustrative of what to avoid would be the following instance – the customs duty on molasses was being reduced from sixpence a gallon (a gallon only sold for 18 pence). The going bribe to the customs man to avoid the tax was 1 ½ to 2 pence, but rather than simply set the new rate at that of the bribe, thus making as cheap to obey the law as to cheat it, Grenville made it three pence to make his point of Parliamentary authority, even though it might cut into profits.

Overall, the key is for London to treat America as a partner, though junior, and not a servant, as subordinate but not subservient. Considering that it took 11 years for the colonists to have enough of getting jerked around, pretty much anytime up to 1770 is probably fair game, but the sooner the better, hopefully with a POD as close to 1760 as possible (I would consider a situation where the Albany Plan is approved but that is further down the list unless I could come up with a way to keep the FIW mostly the same). Next time I am going to try to nail down a specific POD.

 

[Dave Howery]

as far as taxation goes, the problem was that the colonials were too used to paying next to nothing.... what few taxes were levied on them were rarely collected. While it may seem for them to have been ungrateful to be expected to pay up for the favor did them by Britain in ridding them of the French menace, it's hardly surprising... how many people like having their taxes suddenly multiplied many times over? The bigger problem is that the colonials simply were in charge of their own affairs for far too long... Britain just didn't show enough interest or keep a close enough control over things from the start. Again, it's hardly surprising that so many colonials were pissed off when Britain acted like it was going to finally take charge of everything. Britain looked upon the rebels as being ungrateful lower class exiles who cost them a lot of blood and treasure in ridding them of the French. The rebels regarded Britain as a often-absent and distant overlord who left them unguarded to the perils of the French and their native allies, ignored them most of the time, and, just when they finally got off their butts and got rid of their enemies, decided to suddenly raise taxes and slap laws on them. It's hardly surprising that the rebellion broke out... the two sides had simply diverged too much for the war to be avoided, and it had to be decided by war (you can say the same thing about the ACW). Thus, you really need an early POD to have no ARW...

 

[plantagenet]

You could have a point, but with all due respect I am going forward with this anyway, fully aware it is not the likeliest scenario in the world. As I mentioned, the further back from 1750 the POD is, the greater the impact is likely to be on England and the larger world, which is something I'd just as soon avoid. I am working on a scenario where the Albany Plan is accepted by the crown and the provincial governors, who could be ordered to desist in their opposition if the crown went along (though whether they would is an open question). I am also looking at a WI the Prince of Wales, Frederick Lewis, father of George III, had lived longer. He died of a burst abscess, which in that day would likely be fatal, but I could just say it either never bursts or never forms in the first place. In this situation, when George II dies in 1760, he is succeeded by his son Frederick as King Frederick I. This is not locked in, just something I am playing with.

You know, I don't actually agree with the supposition that the colonies were already lost to GB before they ever rebelled. Many colonials desperately wanted to remain British; things like the Olive Branch Petition, which was sent after the action at Breed's Hill, efforts of men like Benjamin Franklin to gain some kind of compromise settlement suggest that had Britain been a bit more circumspect the colonies could still have been saved, though probably not after 1765 or so. I know the Olive Branch thing was sent in '75 but I'm just saying it shows the sentiment was there, though they may have sent it knowing it would be rejected.

Also, I find intriguing the idea that Britain could have levied taxes from the beginning. It would have been logistically extremely difficult, what with the settlements being so isolated and thinly spread along the coastline. I doubt if the taxes would pay for the ships and the soldiers who would have to protect the tax-collecting apparatus which would be necessary to ensure smooth collection. Let's not forget the Calvinist Puritans left England for a reason - they hated Anglicans. I doubt they'd be eager to hand over much of anything to those heretics. Also, there was little money to be had initially while the settlements were working to establish themselves. The earliest I'd think tax collection would be practically feasible and worth their while would be around 1700, which is 93 years after the first settlement, so also probably too late. I cannot imagine what would compel people in England to pay more attention to an uncivilized backwater peopled by their social refuse.

 

[MerryPrankster]

How can you call this thread:"Bunker Hill Goes Horribly Wrong"? From a British perspective, from a loyal colonial perspective, from an Amerindian perspective the proposed POD is a spiffingly excellent result. Only the traitorous colonists could possibly regard the result you suggest being "Horribly Wrong".

Are you British?

The Brits might have been less land-greedy than the Colonials, but the annihilation of the Eastern Seaboard tribes (including the use of smallpox as a biological weapon) was done under their auspices.

Of course, I think the Indians are better off in Canada than in the US, so in the long-run,things might have been better.

 

[plantagenet]

First I am going to try this with George III as king, since I think it would be a bit of a stretch to have Freddy live on another 9 years if he lived longer at all.

Let’s say the Albany Plan is approved with some modifications that make the resulting union explicitly subordinate to Parliament and the crown. Its implementation is suspended until the conclusion of peace with France, the crown and Parliament arguing it would be imprudent to attempt to select and install a new government in the colonies while they are locked in combat with their ancient enemy. The colonial delegates agree to this and the matter is settled, though in the dark days of Loudon and Braddock there are some calls for immediate implementation (these are few and fairly muted – most feel the reasoning behind postponement in sound).

The war progresses pretty much as OTL; when the news of the surrender of the French in September 1760, many in the colonies believe their time has come, but now there is a new question: do the conquered lands go along with the other colonies into the union? There is much debate about this, for at first Britain is unsure of whether Canada or the West Indies will be returned to France in the peace treaty. London uses this as an opportunity to stall, saying that with peace so close, it would be unwise to form a union with potential members remaining unaffiliated. This argument is accepted grudgingly.

On February 10th, 1763, the Peace of Paris is signed, giving Great Britain Canada and returning the West Indies to France. Immediately London is deluged with petitions and envoys requesting and almost demanding immediate implementation of the Albany Plan of Colonial Union. At this point there is a crisis in which the new king, George III, considers reneging on the deal, and some argue that things have changed so during the war and its aftermath the plan should be dismissed entirely. The colonial agents are outraged at such a suggestion and point out the changes in question were wrought at their hands and, besides, the Plan was given the royal assent in 1754, well before the supposed changes took place. Ultimately cooler heads, especially William Pitt, speaking in the Lords in one of his most famous speeches calling on his fellow peers to keep faith with their kinsmen across the sea who endured such hardships on behalf of the Empire and struck such a blow against “perfidious Gallia,” prevail and the moratorium on implementation is, finally, lifted. The union formally goes into effect on January 1st, 1764, almost a full decade after being first approved in Albany, NY.

The first President-General of the new Dominion of America is (for right now) Sir William Johnson, a loyal crown servant and expert on American affairs. The assemblies of the several colonies select from their own numbers the requisite delegates who gather in Philadelphia, that being the largest city in BNA at the time and also centrally located. Nova Scotia is included with three delegates and so is Canada with 2 delegates, both Frenchmen but harmless since they make up less than 4 percent of the Council and can be safely ignored (this state is not likely to continue as the population of Canada begins to grow significantly later in the 1700s and 1800s).

With an American local gov’t coming to Philadelphia, there is no Proclamation of 1763, since the settlement of new lands is covered by sections 12-14 of the Albany Plan.

12. That [the Grand Council] make all purchases from Indians, for the crown, of lands not now within the bounds of particular Colonies, or that shall not be within their bounds when some of them are reduced to more convenient dimensions.

13. That they make new settlements on such purchases, by granting lands in the King's name, reserving a quitrent to the crown for the use of the general treasury.

14. That they make laws for regulating and governing such new settlements, till the crown shall think fit to form them into particular governments.

The Royal Proclamation in OTL caused much resentment and could be considered the first proximate cause of the ARW. W/out it, things are much better, even if London is dragging its feet in putting the new colonial gov’t in place.

The new gov’t’s first test is to deal with Pontiac’s War. I am not totally sure how this plays out, though. In OTL it was put down by General Thomas Gage militarily and William Johnson diplomatically; in TTL after 1 January 1764 Johnson is P-G, so he and Gage could still work on solving the native problem similarly to OTL. Let’s say, just for fun, that the colonial gov’t and the British military establishment in NA work together extremely well, the new union basically vindicating itself and earning credibility in many eyes.

 

[Rick Robinson]

Also, there was little money to be had initially while the settlements were working to establish themselves.

I think that hits the nail on the head regarding England's failure to assert active governance from the outset. (Note that till 1707, "England" is the correct term!) The costs of administration would have been greater than any financial benefit. Even c. 1700, the modest potential return probably didn't look worth the hassles of setting up a general administration.

I'm not familiar with Pitt's policies or thinking, but he may be the right POD for what you have in mind (or at least, people influenced by his views). His policy, as you've outlined it, is an implicit recognition that the colonials are essentially not subjects in the strict sense, but allies.

Back on the Plantagenet France thread, I think I mentioned a theory that had some currency in (presumably) colonial circles, namely that the colonies owed allegiance to the crown, but not to Parliament. They had been chartered in the first place as crown colonies, and in this argument their legal status was like Hanover, 13 little principalities with the same monarch as Britain.

In terms of colonial sentiment, I think it's indicative that the Continentals, along with various rattlesnake and pine-tree flags, initially used what amounts to the modern American flag but with the Union crosses where we put the stars.

So, in short, I suspect that a peaceful settlement was possible till about 1770 or even a little after, though I'm completely hazy on the exact dynamics of possible PODs.

-- Rick

 

[Tielhard]

MerryPrankster wrote: "Are you British?"

How off topic and intrusive can you be? I was just pointing out the neutral POV failure in the initial post. The British are responsible for nearly as many of the world evils as the Americans and that is saying some thing.

 

[Wozza]

Tielhard is still causing trouble I see

do you mean "are" responsible or "were" responsible though?

 

[plantagenet]

I meant for the thread title to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, a bit facetious; I was not being really serious. Personally, if the ARW were fought today, I'd stay out of it entirely. America and the British Empire in their respective periods as Powers both did or have done some questionable things and I think we should leave it at that.

I was just trying to come up with a cool sounding play on words for the thread title and that was the best I could come up with. So don't read too much into it.

 

[MerryPrankster]

MerryPrankster wrote: "Are you British?"

How off topic and intrusive can you be? I was just pointing out the neutral POV failure in the initial post. The British are responsible for nearly as many of the world evils as the Americans and that is saying some thing.

Sorry if what I asked was perceived as insulting. I was wondering what perspective you approached the matter from.

For example, Landshark is British and he doesn't think highly of the Revolution at all. Your position on how a defeat might have been "bad" for the colonists (who you describe as "traitorous"), but good for the Loyalists (1/3 of the Colonial population), the British themselves, and the Native Americans sounded like you believed an American defeat at Bunker/Breed's Hill would be a good thing.