History Without Benjamin Franklin

I am writing an Alternate History Research paper about how Benjamin Franklin never being born or dying in childhood would have theoretically changed the course of history. Obviously Norton's 10'th law comes into play: "There Are No Alternate Histories, Just Approximations" but thats what makes this fun anyway.

The obvious changes are:

Not a signer of the Declaration or the Constitution
The lack of all his inventions
Wouldn't have secured Frances help in the revolution. (Would we have lost? I think this angle has the greatest potential to change history. What do you think?)
And of course a different $100 bill! :)

What I'm wondering is:

Are there other differences?
What effect would those differences have had on world/american history?

Any sources that I could use to prove the possibility of the alternative is hugely appreciated.
 
I am writing an Alternate History Research paper about how Benjamin Franklin never being born or dying in childhood would have theoretically changed the course of history. Obviously Norton's 10'th law comes into play: "There Are No Alternate Histories, Just Approximations" but thats what makes this fun anyway.

The obvious changes are:

Not a signer of the Declaration or the Constitution
The lack of all his inventions
Wouldn't have secured Frances help in the revolution. (Would we have lost? I think this angle has the greatest potential to change history. What do you think?)
And of course a different $100 bill! :)

What I'm wondering is:

Are there other differences?
What effect would those differences have had on world/american history?

Any sources that I could use to prove the possibility of the alternative is hugely appreciated.

This could be a huge change, or a very insignificant one. If things still go as otl up till the revolution, I don't think much will change. Franklin was brilliant, but he wasn't the only one working on those experiments he toyed with.

When it comes to getting France on the American side I'm not sure. I know that John Adams was not the best choice to play Parisian politics, or as I like to call, Franklonian Diplomacy. I still think we could of gotten it without the French, but it would have taken a little longer, and be a little more difficult.

I am one of those people who thinks America could still win against the British without French help. Most of the other countries of Europe were on America's side.
 
Well, we're without his specific contributions to electromagnetism, e.g. the theory of charges. Someone else eventually discovers them or some equivalent.

Maybe we avoid his erroneous convention of "positive charge" flowing from the "+" to the "-" (in reality, though he couldn't know this, electrons travel from the "-" to the "+"). This would save millions of tortured Electrical Engineering students the headache of having to learn "well, it actually goes this way, but the convention is opposite, so we do the math as though it went that way." :rolleyes:

Also: no Armonica.
 
Franklin was the principal author of the Albany Plan. Both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution need other models if he hadn't written this.
 
Thanks for all you replies

Since this is for school I couldn't just say, "Well nothing changed" so here's what I said:

The Stamp Act Crisis is averted without Benjamin's help and the war breaks out in 1775. In 1776 Thomas Jefferson, another famous founding father, is sent to France in order to secure help in the war effort. He is the obvious second choice in Benjamin's absence since in real history he really was the second ambassador to France (Wikipedia). He signs a treaty of Amity and Commerce which secures financing and trade but refuses to sign an alliance. This is in-line with his views which he expresses at a later date in his inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none" (Inaugural Address). Army recruiting slumped off and even money could not entice many of the militia men who had already served back into the service. The loans and equipment provided by this arrangement are not enough to win the revolution. Due to the strong British Military and low numbers of poorly trained American troops, Britain wins the war in 1782 after a failed attack on New York by George Washington. Washington wanted to attack New York but in real history was dissuaded by Rochambeau, a French commander who obviously is not here in the alternate history (EyeWitness to History.com). After their victory Britain angrily cracks down on the laxness and liberty they have been showing their colonies, impose strict military order and high taxes in order to gain revenues. Dissidents Continue to arise but for the moment at least, are quickly subdued. Britain uses money obtained thru taxing the colonies to swell its army to over 350,000 troops. In 1793 when the revolutionary government of France declares war on Britain, the British respond with an all out attack. Angered by France's funding the American side of the war, the British invade and conquer most of France, but return it in the Treaty of Amiens which, in this alternate history lasts due to Britain's ability to enforce it.

What do you think> Total BS, or somewhat plausible? I cant wait for some replies.
 
One of the main issues is that at this point unless you ignore butterflies completely, it's very difficult to actually get the revolution. For example, in 1760 Franklin wrote (emphasis added):

No one can rejoice more sincerely than I do at the reduction of Canada; and this not merely as I am a colonist, but as I am a Briton.
 
Top