DBWI: What if the Rebellion of 1775 was succesful?

I think it could have been successful if Howe hadn't defeated General Washington.

Howe on earth would that happen? Sorry could not resist but George Washington seems to me to have won his reputation by managing retreats. Once Washington had tied himself into a defensive position it was bound to be Fort Necessity all over again.

I suppose if Howe had been a little less decisive and the rebels a little more lucky it might have worked. Then again though you look at the disparity of resources and the fact the rebels clearly only had minority support in the long run I think it would have just delayed the inevitable.
 

Kingpoleon

Banned
I can see it happening if Lee and Gates had been there to assist, and not been captured and killed. The rebels had no way to govern, nor the British backing. Not even the French would be stupid enough to back them after that loss. Of course, let's assume it happened. Who would be king of the rebels? Surely you don't believe all that republican propaganda they were spouting. The only one that might even agree was Prince Henry, and he wouldn't have children. Nice try, but I think Britain would just re-incorporate them later.
 
Well, one question to wonder is, what happens to slavery? IOTL, it took until 1829 to end the slave trade, and 1874 for slavery itself to be phased out(over 5 years, mind you!). I remember reading Robert Sobel's 1976 epic Counter-Factual, "For Want of a Nail", during my high school classes in the late '80s(yes, high school, not secondary school, ya stuffy crumpets!), in which slave trade was banned in 1807, with the U.S. eliminating slavery in 1865(albeit after a devastating civil war!).

I can see it happening if Lee and Gates had been there to assist, and not been captured and killed. The rebels had no way to govern, nor the British backing. Not even the French would be stupid enough to back them after that loss. Of course, let's assume it happened. Who would be king of the rebels? Surely you don't believe all that republican propaganda they were spouting. The only one that might even agree was Prince Henry, and he wouldn't have children. Nice try, but I think Britain would just re-incorporate them later.

Are you sure? Many of the rebels hadn't exactly been happy with the institution of the monarchy itself, let along George III; I agree with Sobel and Turtledove when they make the argument that a successful American Revolution would almost certainly have ended in a democratic republic.....whereas in France, the Bourbons were merely replaced with a more "native" dynasty(albeit a much nicer one!).

But then again, the new country's leaders would likely need to compromise in order to survive.
 
I can see it happening if Lee and Gates had been there to assist, and not been captured and killed. The rebels had no way to govern, nor the British backing. Not even the French would be stupid enough to back them after that loss. Of course, let's assume it happened. Who would be king of the rebels? Surely you don't believe all that republican propaganda they were spouting. The only one that might even agree was Prince Henry, and he wouldn't have children. Nice try, but I think Britain would just re-incorporate them later.

I think a republic is possible, if not certain-remember that at the time that there were virtually no colonial peers and few colonies had anything resembling a hereditary aristocracy, so the elites were by and large mercantile and used to a basically concilliar system of internal self-government. Under these circumstances I could see a Republic take off simply because there's no obvious reason to have one and attempting to pick a king would inevitably be a divisive affair. On the other hand, a rebellion that succeeds before the monarchy had made itself so unpopular that "king" was a political slur might well be more amenable to a king with strictly limited powers.

Remember also that no likely European candidate(should they pursue that) would be a native English speaker or used to living in the colonies so it's possible that they would choose a king in order to gain international legitimacy and have someone to 'represent them to Europe' so to speak while leaving him largely out of the loop of actual government. It really depends on who emerges with the most power after the rebellion succeeds.
 
I think a republic is possible, if not certain-remember that at the time that there were virtually no colonial peers and few colonies had anything resembling a hereditary aristocracy, so the elites were by and large mercantile and used to a basically concilliar system of internal self-government. Under these circumstances I could see a Republic take off simply because there's no obvious reason to have one and attempting to pick a king would inevitably be a divisive affair. On the other hand, a rebellion that succeeds before the monarchy had made itself so unpopular that "king" was a political slur might well be more amenable to a king with strictly limited powers.

Remember also that no likely European candidate(should they pursue that) would be a native English speaker or used to living in the colonies so it's possible that they would choose a king in order to gain international legitimacy and have someone to 'represent them to Europe' so to speak while leaving him largely out of the loop of actual government. It really depends on who emerges with the most power after the rebellion succeeds.

It may be possible, but again, as Sobel & Turtledove, and many others besides, have pointed out, the idea of another monarch replacing George III truly was unpopular amongst many North Americans, especially highly so in the colonies north of Maryland. I suspect that the point of departure might require a saner George III, which does carry with it, the possibility of butterflying the Rebellion as we know it.
 
It may be possible, but again, as Sobel & Turtledove, and many others besides, have pointed out, the idea of another monarch replacing George III truly was unpopular amongst many North Americans, especially highly so in the colonies north of Maryland. I suspect that the point of departure might require a saner George III, which does carry with it, the possibility of butterflying the Rebellion as we know it.

I'm confused; how does a saner George III help the rebel cause?
 
Prince Henry? The Young Pretender's still alive through 1788. Even if they try a republic at first, the colonies' confederation probably falters and they turn to him as a nice stabilizing central figure with royal legitimacy.

And it's not like the succession eventually falling to the Sardinian crown after Charles "III" and Henry "IX" die isn't any more a problem than the previous British succession falling to the Hanoverians.
 
I don't think it would have amounted to much in any case. Remember Washington's army and the Continental Congress really only seemed to represent a tiny fraction of America's population. I think if they were any more successful than OTL expect "tories" to be rallying to the crown's forces in droves.
 
I'm confused; how does a saner George III help the rebel cause?

Not quite what I said: what I *did* say, however, was that it might make the Americans, should a rebellion still occur, make the idea of a home-grown monarchy a little more palatable to many North Americans.
 

Kingpoleon

Banned
Prince Henry? The Young Pretender's still alive through 1788. Even if they try a republic at first, the colonies' confederation probably falters and they turn to him as a nice stabilizing central figure with royal legitimacy.

And it's not like the succession eventually falling to the Sardinian crown after Charles "III" and Henry "IX" die isn't any more a problem than the previous British succession falling to the Hanoverians.

Prince Henry won't have any children though. I could see perhaps Steuben managing to plead for a different Prussian Prince though.
 
The only thing certain if the Revolt were to succeed( By the Grace of God I don't see how) is that this new 'Republic' would do something damnable like watering down their tea, and that is a fate I can not abide.
 
But ho could a insurrection lead to independence? It was not a majority that rebelled - it wasn't even a plurality. Most colonists were loyal to the crown, more interested to make a living than in politics.

A war is seldom won on the battlefield (that only helps to define who is stronger). You need two things to "win": foreign money (and maybe troops and weapons) and a friendly nation that helps you on the negotiation table.

In North America those roles could only filled by by two nations France and Spain.

Spain in the second half of the 18th century was struggling, so it could only help a little bit, France, well France was flat out broke after the wars it fought the decades before. It took the french almost three decades from 1700-1798 to sort out things. Their own revolution which swep away the ancien regime and establised the Royaume Orelaniste. The French had nothing to spare.

The other large nations had no interest in the West. Russia looked east to India (well this somewhat distracted teh Brits, but not enough) and Austria and Prussia were locked in a series of wars of dominance in Germany.
 

Yuelang

Banned
The Tyrany of King Washington (or the American George?)

Most likely London sent another batch of even larger troops to quell the uprising. Washington will still end up hanged, but perhaps with the addition of drawn and quartered.
 
But ho could a insurrection lead to independence? It was not a majority that rebelled - it wasn't even a plurality. Most colonists were loyal to the crown, more interested to make a living than in politics.

Loyal in a sense, yes, but mainly to their homes, and not necessarily to whoever was King at the moment.
 
Top