Easiest Way to butterfly the American Revolution?
- Thread starter tehShifty
- Start date
I'ld say that you need to prevent the Great Awakening. Stop people like George Whitfield from preaching to the Americans that they should be free and independent and that Great Britain is out to get them.
A French victory in the 7YW could potentially hasten the Revolution - Britain might be forced to pay money, which it would then attempt to recoup via taxing the colonies.
That's a good one.
Anyway, if you want a good POD, it would be during the 16th century, that way England doesn't take the eastern seaboard so easily.
I was think more along the line of the French commit more troops to the North American Theater and the British having to send more redcoats to deal with them, possibly leading to a greater feeling of identy with England...
I don't think sending more soldiers will make them feel more British. It'll most likely make them feel more oppressed. They didn't like the number that was there IOTL, I don't think they'ld like even more ITTL. That'll lead to more taxes, which we Americans have never been fond of.
The Space Viking
Banned
And we never will be
Easiest way to butterfly the ARW, IMHO, would be to have William Pitt go through with his plans to give the colonies representation. IIRC, he died before he could put his plans into effect.
usertron2020
Donor
And we never will be
Easiest way to butterfly the ARW, IMHO, would be to have William Pitt go through with his plans to give the colonies representation. IIRC, he died before he could put his plans into effect.
The representation idea wouldn't have worked. The colonies would be routinely outvoted on the issues of taxation and commerce regulating. Remember, in those days England's control over the colonies' economy was so tight they didn't allow factories to be built.
What you needed was every briton thinking like William Pitt, not George III. Sir Guy Carleton, not George Germain. Colonel Patrick Ferguson, not Brigadier Banastre Tarleton. You put those three men (and those like-minded) in charge of everything and the First British Empire survives.
War for Silesia doesnt take place or is very short and in north America anglo-french combat ends in status quo and english colonist have to fear a french take over all the time.
Maria Teresa wars with Prusia caused financial problems to all european powers involved(both France and England had to increase the tax--> american=-english not represented in London parliament.... and french noblility blocking the financial reform)
But you have to combine this with a bigger french arrivals(only catholics where alowed to go to America sadly so no unhappy frenchie was able to land in America to escape the evil from back home)
Maria Teresa wars with Prusia caused financial problems to all european powers involved(both France and England had to increase the tax--> american=-english not represented in London parliament.... and french noblility blocking the financial reform)
But you have to combine this with a bigger french arrivals(only catholics where alowed to go to America sadly so no unhappy frenchie was able to land in America to escape the evil from back home)
If you keep the French a threat on the borders, then you keep a reliance on Britain to defend them. Of course you have to keep the balance, and the French were always outnumbered when it came to actual war and the counting of fighting men, so peaceful threat is what we want...
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Britain goes for New Orleans First.
Britain planed to raise 30,000 Men in the Colonies to take New Orleans and Louisiana. However Britain got stuck in Cuba,and the 10,000 men were used as reinforcement there.
If Britain takes the Mississippi Valley, whe have Settlers Moving up the River, No 1763 Line, No Spanish retaking Florida, probably no Spanish in the ARW.
Britain planed to raise 30,000 Men in the Colonies to take New Orleans and Louisiana. However Britain got stuck in Cuba,and the 10,000 men were used as reinforcement there.
If Britain takes the Mississippi Valley, whe have Settlers Moving up the River, No 1763 Line, No Spanish retaking Florida, probably no Spanish in the ARW.
Thinking outside the box a bit: suppose Wolfe is not killed at Quebec? Further, suppose he is lionized sufficiently in the colonies that he takes up permanent residence there and (lifting a page from the Normans) becomes more American than the Americans, to the point where he can champion the colonists' cause in London? He and Pitt would form a formidable duo that would probably lead to a significant degree of North American autonomy with some more-or-less nominal presence of the crown.
This. A major reason the American colonists felt empowered enough to start making demands was when the French were pushed out of North America (ignoring Louisiana) as suddenly there was no more threat of the French constantly allying the Iroquois or whichever tribe it was to attack the British colonies, and thus reliance on British soldiers was minimised. From that point on, the sight of a British soldier became more a symbol of the government protecting its own interests at the expense of the colonies, and less a sign of a motherly Britannia guarding its children against the aggressors they couldn't fight alone.
Talk of a French victory in the 7 Years War making the revolution more likely is premature and perhaps spurious really. Britain wouldn't really shunt the reparations bill onto the colonists, because it never did tax the colonists hard. IIRC the American colonists had to pay something like 10-20% of the taxes that the average Briton at home had to pay, and it would be the Home Islands, which forever shouldered most of the cost of the Empire's administration, which would foot the bill. Even if it did levy taxes on the colonists, the fear of the French - especially a France which had just beaten the British, and thus by extension had beaten the Americans - would force the colonists into the British pocket even more. Declaring independence after a French victory would feel like suicide to the colonists.
Well, at the end of the 7YW, Britain had a choice between some sugar-producing Caribbean islands and Canada. They chose Canada, but in ATL, the reverse could keep the colonists more tied to Britain. I did this in Monarchy World, among other things...
Washington is captured during the Battle of Harlem Heights would do it.
Or if he's captured (or killed) during the Battle of Trenton. According to the infallible Wikipedia, 50 Americans had attacked a Hessian outpost. Washington feared that the Hessians would be put on guard. Assume that a Hessian or two managed to make it back to Trenton and warn the garrison there. Washington killed in the fighting (or captured by the Hessians) and, boom, goodbye Revolution.
In OTL, Trenton gave the Americans hope that they could win against the British. The Continental Congress was happy because there was an increase in enlistment in the Army. In TTL, the Americans are completely demoralized. Congress would be demoralized and enlistment would falter, if not stop. They would end up surrendering and, behold, a British Empire which holds the colonies.
Or if he's captured (or killed) during the Battle of Trenton. According to the infallible Wikipedia, 50 Americans had attacked a Hessian outpost. Washington feared that the Hessians would be put on guard. Assume that a Hessian or two managed to make it back to Trenton and warn the garrison there. Washington killed in the fighting (or captured by the Hessians) and, boom, goodbye Revolution.
In OTL, Trenton gave the Americans hope that they could win against the British. The Continental Congress was happy because there was an increase in enlistment in the Army. In TTL, the Americans are completely demoralized. Congress would be demoralized and enlistment would falter, if not stop. They would end up surrendering and, behold, a British Empire which holds the colonies.
You would have to butterfly most of the Seven Years War away... GB doesn't have Hanover, the Bourbons stay quite, and the Hapsburgs either lose or win easily.
OTL, the bill for removing the Tea Tax in 1770 along with the other taxes failed by one vote. It's likely that if it had been repealed, the government would have been reluctant to add a new tax, out of fear of looking indecisive. On the other hand, if a later government added any new taxes, the problems in the colonies would have just started up again, only later.
However, I think I can say fairly confidently that if the ARW didn't happen by 1800, it wouldn't have happened at all, because the population was nearly doubling every 20 years. In 1775 there were ~3 million people in the colonies, as opposed to ~8 million in Great Britain. 50 years later the American population had surpassed that of Great Britain.
So, by 1790-1800 even the most warlike British government would have known their odds of winning a war against the united colonies would be next to nil, and would be forced to negotiate in the event of a crisis.
Additionally the mercantilism system was in the process of fading out in the late 1700s; without it one of the major causes of the war would be gone.
However, I think I can say fairly confidently that if the ARW didn't happen by 1800, it wouldn't have happened at all, because the population was nearly doubling every 20 years. In 1775 there were ~3 million people in the colonies, as opposed to ~8 million in Great Britain. 50 years later the American population had surpassed that of Great Britain.
So, by 1790-1800 even the most warlike British government would have known their odds of winning a war against the united colonies would be next to nil, and would be forced to negotiate in the event of a crisis.
Additionally the mercantilism system was in the process of fading out in the late 1700s; without it one of the major causes of the war would be gone.
usertron2020
Donor
Don't tell this to our resident Uber-Britwanker. According to you-know-who, the British Empire had it well within its power to subdue the United States right up until about one year before the Trinity test or so.
I'm not making this up.
Last edited: