Have anybody ever did...

A successful British victory in the American Revolution TL, that do not lead to an independent republican America (of whatever size) a few decades later?
 
Arguably, Robert Sobel's For Want of a Nail is such a timeline, with the rebellion being defeated at Saratoga 1777 and a more-or-less magnanimous peace swiftly following.

I don't recall seeing one here, since I think the consensus is that it's implausible; a victorious Britain has no reason to be conciliatory toward the colonies, and a Britain that is not conciliatory towards them cannot hold them by force. The colonies will equal the population of the home islands in the 1830s; after that, they have all the cards - population, home turf advantage, defense in depth, even without foreign sponsors.
 
Arguably, Robert Sobel's For Want of a Nail is such a timeline, with the rebellion being defeated at Saratoga 1777 and a more-or-less magnanimous peace swiftly following.

I don't recall seeing one here, since I think the consensus is that it's implausible; a victorious Britain has no reason to be conciliatory toward the colonies, and a Britain that is not conciliatory towards them cannot hold them by force. The colonies will equal the population of the home islands in the 1830s; after that, they have all the cards - population, home turf advantage, defense in depth, even without foreign sponsors.

And I think, a noncolilatory Britain may finally break the backs of the colonists if home politics go as OTL and the 1830s see the unilateral abolition of slavery. Of course, the slave holders from the Carribean had some pull in Parliament and the Southerners may boost it so it's delayed, but I somehow doubt it. I quite imagine we'd see a second American rising with the 1830s abolition.
 
What if the colony came under attack by another imperial power, so that they needed help from the British?
 
What if the colony came under attack by another imperial power, so that they needed help from the British?

Who would attack them though? If Britain wins, they've already got Canada. The only remaining power in North America is Spain, and that's just California with it's missions and sparsely inhabited Louisiana. Britain and Spain did nearly go to war in the 1790s over the Oregon territory, but... I don't see Spain being a threat to the Eastern seaboard. Spain was recovering from her decline during the 17th century, but the Bourbon reforms were progressing slowly.
 
I don't recall seeing one here, since I think the consensus is that it's implausible; a victorious Britain has no reason to be conciliatory toward the colonies, and a Britain that is not conciliatory towards them cannot hold them by force. The colonies will equal the population of the home islands in the 1830s; after that, they have all the cards - population, home turf advantage, defense in depth, even without foreign sponsors.

I don't think there's such a consensus at all, and there's a lot of disagreement on the issue on this site.

In terms of my own views, I think it's pretty viable. Britain was conciliatory when it retook places during the war, the British parliament got more liberal over decades after the 1770s, it generally takes a few decades until you get another rebellion in colonies and sectional disputes would have set in by that point.

There's a difference between viable and likely however. The probability is always going to be towards independence after about 1770.
 
I don't think there's such a consensus at all, and there's a lot of disagreement on the issue on this site.

In terms of my own views, I think it's pretty viable. Britain was conciliatory when it retook places during the war, the British parliament got more liberal over decades after the 1770s, it generally takes a few decades until you get another rebellion in colonies and sectional disputes would have set in by that point.

There's a difference between viable and likely however. The probability is always going to be towards independence after about 1770.

I dunno if Parliament got more liberal. Certainly after the war, but the French Revolution caused a reaction. Fox's Whigs splintered and the Tories under Pitt prospered and enjoyed about twenty years of uninterrupted dominance, passing a variety of draconian acts in the interwar period, such as banning unions, meetings of large groups of people, the Corn Laws, ect. They also proved stubborn over Catholic Emancipation and the Reform Act.
 
I dunno if Parliament got more liberal. Certainly after the war, but the French Revolution caused a reaction. Fox's Whigs splintered and the Tories under Pitt prospered and enjoyed about twenty years of uninterrupted dominance, passing a variety of draconian acts in the interwar period, such as banning unions, meetings of large groups of people, the Corn Laws, ect. They also proved stubborn over Catholic Emancipation and the Reform Act.

The French Revolution would have had a significantly different course with an unsuccessful American one, especially if France does not get involved in the ARW. The effects of this on internal British politics of the time are Terra Incognita to me, but combined with the consequences of what happened in America could give you a rather different Parliament down the line.
 
The French Revolution would have had a significantly different course with an unsuccessful American one, especially if France does not get involved in the ARW. The effects of this on internal British politics of the time are Terra Incognita to me, but combined with the consequences of what happened in America could give you a rather different Parliament down the line.

Yes, of course. But France was still having her issues, and even an aborted ARW doesn't kill off the Enlightenment in France and the ideas that influenced it. France still has bad finances, and while they won't be worsened by intervening to help the Americans, it would probably only delay troubles in France by a few years. Colonne and Necker were largely attempting to balance the budget through high interest loans, so there will still be issues in France. A victory in America won't embolden the Whigs, anyways; they were largely sympathetic with them. If anything, it'll bolster the Tories.
 
Arguably, Robert Sobel's For Want of a Nail is such a timeline, with the rebellion being defeated at Saratoga 1777 and a more-or-less magnanimous peace swiftly following..

And one of the reasons the peace was magnamous was that the Continental Congress itself effectively deposed the revolutionary ring leaders (Adams, Jefferson, etc) when the war started to turn bad and came to the British with a "woops we made a big mistake and we're really really sorry" approach before that much British blood was spilt. I think this quite plausible and could eventually have led Britain to institute the kind of Imperial reforms Sobel imagines.
 
I meant on AH.com.

I don't know. We generally seem to subvert the TL types* that are the super common ones (Nazi victory, Confederate victory, British victory over colonies), so finding one where Britain wins and the colonies don't act up again I'm not so sure about.

*By this, I mean what is generally the mainstream expectations and assumptions, which tend to be flawed.
 
Last edited:
Look to the West could qualify as the whole POD and early divergences have to do with Frederick, the Prince of Wales being exiled to the colonies by his angry father. He proceeds to make a very different America which is much more closely aligned with Britain, and by making British interests linked to American interests much earlier. The divergences branch out from there but it works.

I am dubious about the idea that all the ideological underpinnings of the French Revolution were created from the American Revolutionary War. Obviously there was a lot of things borrowed from them but I think that the ideas of liberty and the emancipation of the common man from arbitrary aristocracy comes from mostly european sources (Rousseau, Voltaire) and even political agitators that existed before the American Revolution (John Wilkes and Pasquale Paoli to name the most important). They were covered in detail by press all over europe and had serious popular support among the lower classes of many nations. Those seem to be the more likely precursors to the French Revolution than the Americans, for many saw the American Revolution as distant and created under completely different circumstances than the French Revolution. I'm not saying that it wasn't important to the development of the ideology of the French Revolution. I'm just saying that the pressures of the Revolution, ie the dysfunction of the French tax system, as well as the ideology behind Revolution, (A popular republic which allows all men to vote and equalize society) were there and would make a French Revolution in the absence of an American Revolution plausible.
 
I haven't done a TL, but I did do a map, if it's of interest? PoD is 1774, when the Galloway Plan is adopted by the First Continental Congress...

the_commonwealth_of_america_by_edthomasten-d356xpm.jpg
 
The problem is that a peaceful soluition requires more sense than the British had, and the British plan to suppress the revolution, as we saw in the American south, was basically "how to lose friends and anger people."
 
I dunno if Parliament got more liberal. Certainly after the war, but the French Revolution caused a reaction. Fox's Whigs splintered and the Tories under Pitt prospered and enjoyed about twenty years of uninterrupted dominance, passing a variety of draconian acts in the interwar period, such as banning unions, meetings of large groups of people, the Corn Laws, ect. They also proved stubborn over Catholic Emancipation and the Reform Act.

Pitt's Tories were a step change away from the Tories of the 1760s. And for the record, Pitt was pushing through Catholic Emancipation and resigned when it didn't happen. It was George III that blocked it.
 
I am dubious about the idea that all the ideological underpinnings of the French Revolution were created from the American Revolutionary War. Obviously there was a lot of things borrowed from them but I think that the ideas of liberty and the emancipation of the common man from arbitrary aristocracy comes from mostly european sources (Rousseau, Voltaire) and even political agitators that existed before the American Revolution (John Wilkes and Pasquale Paoli to name the most important). They were covered in detail by press all over europe and had serious popular support among the lower classes of many nations. Those seem to be the more likely precursors to the French Revolution than the Americans, for many saw the American Revolution as distant and created under completely different circumstances than the French Revolution. I'm not saying that it wasn't important to the development of the ideology of the French Revolution. I'm just saying that the pressures of the Revolution, ie the dysfunction of the French tax system, as well as the ideology behind Revolution, (A popular republic which allows all men to vote and equalize society) were there and would make a French Revolution in the absence of an American Revolution plausible.

There's a difference between intellectual ideas being about and them being tried in practice however. Many people thought that Republics could only work for small countries and large ones would revert to monarchies pretty soon. They were pretty surprised when the USA didn't.
 
Two points.
Uno. America isn't Ireland and isn't India. It is populated by whites of mostly British origin and has an established gentry. Like in any Civil War, which this practically was, there is a large neutral minority which Britain can appeal to after the war. Granting titles and land to aristocrats and lowering tariffs and trade restrictions for merchants and farmers.
Duo. The population of America may never reach that of Britain. It is no longer as attractive a destination, so less immigrants.
 
The population of America may never reach that of Britain. It is no longer as attractive a destination, so less immigrants.

I don't agree with this. It's always going to be attractive because of the abundance of land. Living standards were much higher relative to Europe.

That said, it doesn't mean separation is inevitable. In a timeline where the colonies are not united, it is very unlikely that any one colony will have a larger population than Britain. And past about 1800, their differences will mean the North will side with Britain against the South on slavery, and vice versa on free trade.
 
Top