DBWI - Could the colonial rebellion in 1770s been successful?

You all know from your history books that back in the 1770s, the Atlantic Seaboard consisted of a number of British colonies that for lamebrained reasons most of us can't relate to today, "declared" their independence and rebelled against Britain. Britain crushed the rebellion, tried and executed a number of the traitors, and restored order in short order. The rest as they say is history. The colonies prospered and grew in size and population and eventually were fully incorporated into the Kingdom.

So my WI is, could the rebellion actually been successful to bring about a complete separation and independence of the colonies? Could it have survived as some type of independent state? Or is my WI just too ASB?
 

Sachyriel

Banned
Most of us can't relate to today? Jeez, when the Kingdom raises taxes on a popular drug without allowing the voice of those they tax to be heard in order to pay for an unpopular war I think revolution is a perfect idea! The Cannabis Tax is going up and damn it I know all this money is going to go to waste in trying to crush Afghanistan! I can relate to them, I'm just too damn lazy to start a whole war over the measly 2%.

[OOC: Weed is legal since the USA didn't get caught up in an "OMG Mexicans!" type thing, and Afghanistan is still filled with Opium farmers selling their product without complying to international trading rules while being a hidden base for attacking still-British India/Pakistan]

EDIT: Sorry, I missed your question. But it does seem kinda ASB; how would this new nation deal with the Spanish? I mean, they're almost as powerful, or were almost as powerful, and they had some interests in the area, would the American-people be able to fight off the Spaniards after they were exhausted in fighting the British? I don't think so, I think the Spanish would roll up the South and take over.
 
Too ASB. On their own, and even if France or Spain helped them, the rebels couldn't survive.
Britain had and still has a much higher population, and could recruit more men, as well as already having a trained, proffesional army.
The rebels are just some scared, overly-idealistic militia.
 
First, the reasons for the rebellion aren't really that hard to understand if you spend some time with the primary sources instead of relying on school textbooks -- what had started as a constitutional crisis in 1765 ("Can Parliament pass laws without the consent of the local legislatures?") had, by 1776, become a full scale occupation, as British troops disbanded local governments and tried to rule by military force, with no regards to the rights of their fellow Englishmen.

When Parliament, by refusing to engage the constitutional question, pushed the matter this far, they made rebellion inevitable. And even having won the military engagement, by the dawn of the 19th Century, the question that at the heart of the war was settled entirely -- and then some -- in favor of the colonists. Now yes, this was true mostly to an entirely different war, but that brings me to my next point...

On whether the rebellion could succeed or not -- if France and/or Spain joined on the rebellion's side (which they came insanely close to doing in OTL) Britain losing the colonies isn't just ASB, it's actually likely. After all, if the Empire could lose the War of 1784 so badly* in OTL without a colonial rebellion to worry about, think of how badly they would have lost if the North American rebellion was involved.

Now that's a though -- losing all the colonies in North America and India all in one decade's war :eek:

OOC: For those who doubt that Britain would get curbstomped in another European war, just look at the first post of this; oh, and JTBC, the Brits lose their Indian foothold in TTL in the mentioned war :D
 
Last edited:
First, the reasons for the rebellion aren't really that hard to understand if you spend some time with the primary sources instead of relying on school textbooks -- what had started as a constitutional crisis in 1765 ("Can Parliament pass laws without the consent of the local legislatures?") had, by 1776, become a full scale occupation, as British troops disbanded local governments and tried to rule by military force, with no regards to the rights of their fellow Englishmen.


When Parliament, by refusing to engage the constitutional question, pushed the matter this far, they made rebellion inevitable. And even having won the military engagement, by the dawn of the 19th Century, the question that at the heart of the war was settled entirely -- and then some -- in favor of the colonists. Now yes, this was true mostly to an entirely different war, but that brings me to my next point...

On whether the rebellion could succeed or not -- if France and/or Spain joined on the rebellion's side (which they came insanely close to doing in OTL) Britain losing the colonies isn't just ASB, it's actually likely. After all, if the Empire could lose the War of 1784 so badly* in OTL without a colonial rebellion to worry about, think of how badly they would have lost if the North American rebellion was involved.

Now that's a though -- losing all the colonies in North America and India all in one decade's war :eek:

OOC: For those who doubt that Britain would get curbstomped in another European war, just look at the first post of this; oh, and JTBC, the Brits lose their Indian foothold in TTL in the mentioned war :D

Mr. Parker, obviously you must scoff at British Exceptionalism. For me, I see the United Kingdom of Britain, America, and Asia as a shining beacon on a hill for all the world to see.

Nevertheless, I don't think the American colonists in the 1770s could have overthown France, Spain, Portugal, or even Russia for that matter. The moneyed interests (the merchants, traders, planters, and industrialists) in the colonies were too closely tied economically with the Motherland and only a few quirky ones, like the Ben Franklin character, supported the rebels. Then most of the rebels were nothing more than drunkards who only got courageous after spending an afternoon in a tavern getting drunk and dreaming about killing Redcoats.

The various interests, political, economic, etc., of the various colonies were too disparate and the various colonial governments could never agree on how to organize militias, naming a commander in chief, or most importantly, funding an organized war effort. As such, it is not surprising in the least that the British army had total control of the the cities, the ports, and most of the real estate in the colonies by 1777.

Of course then there was that document called the "Declaration of Independence" that a number of the rebel leaders signed in early 1777, in a last ditch effort to drum up support for their rebel cause. But iti was too little too late. I would encourage readers to take a look at it someday. It is full of idealistic mish mash. But the crazy thing is, while it said "all men are created equal" or something to that effect, it was written by a guy who owned slaves at the time. How can he write that and actually think people are going to take such hypocracy seriously. No I think the rebellion was always doomed from the start. But I would love to hear everyones opionions.
 
Mr. Parker, obviously you must scoff at British Exceptionalism. For me, I see the United Kingdom of Britain, America, and Asia as a shining beacon on a hill for all the world to see.

I think it's a beautiful idea, with a lot of truth to it -- but that it gets promoted to schoolchildren with such zeal that it obscures a lot of our Empire's history.

The first half of the reign of King George III in particular is a good example of this -- when Parliament, especially under the government of Lord North, tried to roll back the English liberties -- particularly of representative government -- in the North American colonies, it was only an element of a time when Britain was far from its best.

This was compounded by Britain's poor diplomacy in the period. Quoting a noted historical work on the subject [1]:

After 1763, there was a feeling across much of Europe that Britain had disrupted the balance of power. In response, the British government resolutely reused to be involved in European politics. In the 1760s Britain refused to make any move to build a rapproachment with Austria or Prussia, or make any alliance with Russia. Britain had trouble fililng even prestigious diplomatic posts, and so there was no ambassador to Madrid for several years.

This, of course, meant there was no pressure on France to halt her drive naval rearmament, because no one threatened French interests on the continent. And so the period after 1763 to the Revolution actually saw a series of blows to British policy, as the limits of Britain's (diminishing) naval supremacy became clear. Britain was powerless to stop the sale of Corsica.

Indeed, Britain's passivity in European affairs in the 1770s was rather stark. Britain didn't do anything about the Partition of Poland, when in the 1730s whether or not Britain would intervene had dominated politics.

Consider the straits Britain found itself in by 1785. Britain was at war with France, Spain, and Holland. But it also faced opposition from Sweden, Denmark, and Russia in the form of the League of Neutrality.

Meanwhile, Austria was a French ally, and Frederick the Great hated Britain for its actions in the Seven Years War. Britain stood alone with all of Europe either ambivalent or hostile.

This is to say nothing of the loss of Indian interests that Robert Clive and the EIC had acquired less than 30 years prior.

Nevertheless, I don't think the American colonists in the 1770s could have overthown France, Spain, Portugal, or even Russia for that matter...

And yet they had more success than any rebellion by any of the powers prior, or that any would see for another half century -- and I would argue that is because the rebels, in the end, were just as English as the order they were seeking to overthrow. (Plus, I believe I only referred to a successful rebellion in the event of a Franco and/or Spanish alliance; even the mightiest powers falter when they are alone.)

Understand, none of this is to say that the Empire, on the whole, has been a great benefit to the world on the whole -- but that is all the more reason that we must be able to clearly understand the mistakes it has made in the past, so that we may do our part to continue its glory. That's why these school textbooks get on my nerves.

OOC: OK, Faelin from the link in my last post, with a few tweaks for TTL
 
Last edited:
Top