DBWI AHC: The thirteen Colonies win!

Nah France had financial crisis I don't see them bankrupt themselve to help the rebels but with a pod with the french reforming early it might be possible. Still thoses reform sparked the french civil war I have no doubt that Louis XVI would be too busy crushing unrelly nobles clinging to their privileges then helping a bunch of rebels.

Lest ye not forget, the french king was a dumbass!
 
This actually brings up an interesting point. Since most of the Native States stayed loyal to the Crown, a successful rebellion is not going to deal kindly with them. And the threat of the Natives might actually hold the colonies together for a while--maybe there's a war to push the Natives out of the Ohio Valley? The Northern and Southern colonies might be able to agree on that--one of the rebels' grievances was the restrictions on settling beyond the Appalachians. (Look up the Proclamation of 1763, for instance.)

This makes a lot of sense. Just look at what happened when the crown recognized the Cherokee Dominion and Iroquois Confederacy. The colonist's weren't too happy about those things, and that was a major cause for Colonial dissatisfaction until the Proclamation of 1822 let them settle in those lands.

You'd probably see things like the OTL Rebellions in Red River, Indiana, Mississippi and Dakota (if the Colonists make it that far) much earlier and much more bloody without a more sympathetic government to control the Colonists, and the stronger British diplomacy to "convince" the Americans to move west.

Unless, some of the Americans decided to come to the aid of the Colonists in the rebellion. If I remember right, weren't at least a few of the Haudenosaunee nations somewhat sympathetic to the rebellion? What if they were active supporters of the rebels instead, and helped them to win the war... they might have had a stronger say about their own fate, and you'd still see Independent American nations east of the Mississippi today.
 
Yes he sure was a dumbass to want to reform the country.:rolleyes:

Hey, there's a definite lack of historical consensus as to Louis XVI's personal support for "Les réformistes." Still, if one takes the view that he genuinely believed in their positions, wouldn't that give him an additional reason to support the North American rebels? Granted, it was almost ten years earlier, so his views might still have been evolving. But some of the stuff the rebels published--their "Declaration of Independence," for instance--has a definite Enlightenment air to it, not unlike some of the more radical Reformist stuff.
 
Hey, there's a definite lack of historical consensus as to Louis XVI's personal support for "Les réformistes." Still, if one takes the view that he genuinely believed in their positions, wouldn't that give him an additional reason to support the North American rebels? Granted, it was almost ten years earlier, so his views might still have been evolving. But some of the stuff the rebels published--their "Declaration of Independence," for instance--has a definite Enlightenment air to it, not unlike some of the more radical Reformist stuff.
Yes but with the clergy and the nobility taking arms against him going to war oversea does not seems wise.
 
I don't think the Colonists could make it very far into the west, because they wouldn't have the population base large enough to settle it, or the immigrants that the British Empire gets... unless, they abandon the east altogether to escape the British. That would be cool. A white nation moving inland just like the Cherokee Dominion did.
 
I don't think the Colonists could make it very far into the west, because they wouldn't have the population base large enough to settle it, or the immigrants that the British Empire gets... unless, they abandon the east altogether to escape the British. That would be cool. A white nation moving inland just like the Cherokee Dominion did.

Hmm....hopefully it wouldn't quite end up like the C.D. did(OOC: think of the Bantustans in South Africa).
 
I've seen some pretty preposterous stuff out there. Like the rebels not falling apart and actually writing themselves a constitution, then proceeding to expand all the way to the Pacific! Can you believe that?!

Thought we got rid of all those loony Patriot blokes a while ago. Guess not.
 
I don't think the Colonists could make it very far into the west, because they wouldn't have the population base large enough to settle it, or the immigrants that the British Empire gets... unless, they abandon the east altogether to escape the British. That would be cool. A white nation moving inland just like the Cherokee Dominion did.

They could atleast get a little, until they started the real attempts to fix it the Irish where moving into the colonies very quickly. Its possible that if this continued after their success they could grab slightly more land to the east.
 
Oh come on, even if the Rebels (who called themselves 'Patriots' I think) had won a military there's no chance they'd be able to impose some crackpot liberal ideology on the Loyalist majority.

I mean what are they going to do, force them to leave?
 
I've seen some pretty preposterous stuff out there. Like the rebels not falling apart and actually writing themselves a constitution, then proceeding to expand all the way to the Pacific! Can you believe that?!

Thought we got rid of all those loony Patriot blokes a while ago. Guess not.

If you're referring to 'Stars & Stripes', written by that universally talented Californian author known as Steve Jackson[1], then it's not all that implausible. In fact, I still wonder how in the hell Britain managed not to lose. They had a good number of the people on their side and had the brilliant tactics to back up their goals. Perhaps if a certain Southern general hadn't switched sides there might be a United States today......... :(

OOC:

[1]Think of him as an ATL blend of Harry Turtledove and Robert Sobel. Also a reference to my own TL. ;)
 
Last edited:
Would it effect slavery? I mean, the planters in the southern areas did grumble and gripe for a while after the Empire abolished slavery in 1834. If the colonies win, does slavery end earlier or later?
 
Would it effect slavery? I mean, the planters in the southern areas did grumble and gripe for a while after the Empire abolished slavery in 1834. If the colonies win, does slavery end earlier or later?

OOC: Uh, I don't mean to be rude but you might wanna read my comments.....

IC: In Britain itself and Jamaica, yes. But not elsewhere. In fact, It wasn't until June 1967 that slavery was finally abandoned in the Southern Confederation........
 
I don't think the Colonists could make it very far into the west, because they wouldn't have the population base large enough to settle it, or the immigrants that the British Empire gets... unless, they abandon the east altogether to escape the British. That would be cool. A white nation moving inland just like the Cherokee Dominion did.

Why wouldn't an independent America get as least as immigration as the British America?
 
Last edited:
Oh come on, even if the Rebels (who called themselves 'Patriots' I think) had won a military there's no chance they'd be able to impose some crackpot liberal ideology on the Loyalist majority.

I mean what are they going to do, force them to leave?

The Loyalists weren't a majority, they only made up about a third of the population at the most.
 
This probably butterflies the Japanese Invasion of Britain away.

Hey, you never know--Japan could still end up as a major mobe[1] exporter in this world, and it will probably still be the British who open the country up to outsiders. Still, that's pretty far off from 1776--the Laurence Engine won't be invented for more than a hundred years...

[1] car, truck, etc.
 
Wait, didn’t the Americans win the Revolutionary War?

Note the "DBWI" in the thread title. That's short for "double-blind what if," where an event that occurred in our history is discussed as though we were living in a timeline where it had gone another way.
 
Top