French Victory in Seven Years’ War: No American Revolution?

[sampleswift]

French Victory in Seven Years’ War: No American Revolution?


I have sometimes seen that a French victory in the Seven Years’ War or French and Indian War would have prevented the American Revolution. The logic behind this is that with a French potentially enemy presence so close to the American colonists, they would be more willing to accept British soldier occupation and higher taxation if there was a real threat close to them. In our timeline, there was a lot of frustration and anger about these types of measures when there seemed to be no threat big enough to warrant them–leading colonists to believe the British were trying to use the redcoats to control them.

However, I don’t know if that would be enough to prevent the American Revolution. Britain would be even more broke than in OTL, which may have led to worse taxation policies on the colonies, leading to more tax protests. There would also be the issue of the colonists and Britain pointing fingers at each other about who lost the war (which would also feed into anti-British sentiment especially if hypothetically it was the British generals who kept making mistakes on the American front).

What do you think? Would a French Victory in the Seven Years’ War or French and Indian war prevent the American Revolution?

 

[Onkel Willie]

It's not exactly my area of expertise, but logic would seem to dictate that the French might not be so keen on supporting the American revolutionaries because that might give their own North American colonial subjects funny ideas. Now if there was a chance to absorb the British colonies they still might give support, but the American revolutionaries probably wouldn't be interested in exchanging George III for Louis XVI.

 

[Wendell]

There may still be an American Revolution, but there will be some differences, and France may or may not back the rebels, but are not going to back the British, not for free anyway.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

British are going to be in even worse financial straits if they lose, so taxation is still going to be an issue.

France winning is just a alternate version of the Proclamation of 1763, so settlers being confined to the coast is still going to cause unrest.

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

French Victory in Seven Years’ War: No American Revolution?


I have sometimes seen that a French victory in the Seven Years’ War or French and Indian War would have prevented the American Revolution. The logic behind this is that with a French potentially enemy presence so close to the American colonists, they would be more willing to accept British soldier occupation and higher taxation if there was a real threat close to them. In our timeline, there was a lot of frustration and anger about these types of measures when there seemed to be no threat big enough to warrant them–leading colonists to believe the British were trying to use the redcoats to control them.

However, I don’t know if that would be enough to prevent the American Revolution. Britain would be even more broke than in OTL, which may have led to worse taxation policies on the colonies, leading to more tax protests. There would also be the issue of the colonists and Britain pointing fingers at each other about who lost the war (which would also feed into anti-British sentiment especially if hypothetically it was the British generals who kept making mistakes on the American front).

What do you think? Would a French Victory in the Seven Years’ War or French and Indian war prevent the American Revolution?

Honestly given how the French menace has proven itself on the battlefield and is so close and only continuing to grow in numbers, the American colonists are going to be even more loyal to Britain. Sure there would be complains about higher taxes but in the face of "Papist Frankish Threat" it would be seen as a small sacrifice in name of safety, although political agitation and reformation is definitely possible as the colonies would want their voices heard to defend themselves.

No expansion towards the West either, France probably chips more territory away from them and keeps the Americans firmly on the East side of the Appalachian mountains and the Great Lakes.

 

[George_Apley]

The French threat to the west would be a powerful counterbalance against revolutionary fervor. It's possible that such a presence would also make the British more conciliatory towards the colonies, despite their need for revenue. Something like Ben Franklin's Albany Plan of Union proposal would likely be revisited in the ensuing decades, creating some sort of "dominion"-type government among the colonies that reports to the crown. At the very least Parliament would likely be more open to measures such as tax remittances from colonial governments rather than direct taxation (especially if the Stamp Act riots occur as in OTL). It's also likely that colonial assemblies would be more open to a something like a remittance structure, so long as they control the taxes themselves. Additionally, the presence of British troops in America would be seen as far more necessary if the French maintained their presence beyond the Appalachians - likely further fortifying key positions in the Ohio Country, Great Lakes, and Lake Champlain region. Financial realities and security concerns make it unlikely that something like the Quartering Act would be met with much anxiety by the colonists. Certainly there would still be angst over tariffs and economic dependency, but the presence of the French makes it likely that American Revolution as we know it, does not occur.

The timeline linked in my sig is an exploration of exactly this question, btw, if anyone's interested