Is America Freer if it loses the Revolution?

[Faeelin]

Okay, traditionally, if you imagine British victory in the Revolution we imagine a Redcoat's boot on the face of mankind. Forever. [1]

I agree there would be some negative consequences to British victory. Some colonial legislatures would be suspended, although for how long is unclear. (Consider Britain's hesitancy in suppressing legislatures in the assembly it controled OTL).

Consider, though, the southern colonies. Britain tried freeing slaves and using them in combat. It sought the support of backwoods farmers against the Patriot planter elite. In New York, some of the tenants of rich landowners supported Britain because the landowners were patriots. In Delaware, the loyalists were considered to be the "poor illiterate people."

So. In the Southern colonies, we'd see backwoods farmers who have turned to the governor for support; Ethiopian regiments which help patrol the colony. Still slavery, of course, but...

Thoughts?

[1] Well, I do. I know there are those who think George III becomes a parliamentary monarch, emancipates Catholics, gives women equality, and shoots fireballs from his eyes and lightning bolts from his arse. [2]

[2] OTL recent research suggests he may have actually shot lightning bolts from his arse.

 

[Zyzzyva]

I'm not sure it would be dramatically less free, no. The British would definitely hang some of the more egregious traitors but I'm not sure they could get away with much more, especially given the proportions of loyalists in the country (30/30/30/10 loyal/undecided/traitor/indifferent, and just like the undecideds swung radical once it became apparent Britain was going to lose I expect they'd swing loyal ITTL). I imagine they'd get self-government back with no trouble - and possibly some modicum of representation in London the moment a Whiggish government gets in.

On slavery: I don't think it would go away but since the Mother Country (unlike the new republic) has no particular incentive to coddle slaveowners I can see it getting banned in the American south not much later than OTL's 1833.

 

[Flocculencio]

[1] Well, I do. I know there are those who think George III becomes a parliamentary monarch, emancipates Catholics, gives women equality, and shoots fireballs from his eyes and lightning bolts from his arse. [2]

[2] OTL recent research suggests he may have actually shot lightning bolts from his arse.

All British monarchs can shoot lightning bolts from their arse for 2d4 electrical damage

 

[Jaded_Railman]

Remember, the one third loyal, one third patriot, one third apathetic split is for the beginning of the war. What results depends very strongly on when the revolution is put down.

Regardless, for an idea of what happens to imperial provinces in the British Empire, look at Ireland. If the war ends in anything but a negotiated peace where the rebels have some sort of bargaining power, no, America is significantly less free than IOTL. More importantly than how the war ends, however, is the death of popular democracy in its cradle. Electoral reform in the UK was often driven by populist democratic movements in the US. The Reform of 1867, for instance, hinged on the outcome of the US Civil War in a lot of people's minds. The Chartist movement and the Reform of 1832 were part of a wider democratic upheaval in the English speaking world.

Without the US as an example of egalitarianism and popular democracy, the political evolution of the British Empire is going to be very, very different.

 

[GeneralMatt]

It will be different, yes, however I do not think the United Kingdom was solely reliant on the United States in regards to democratic reform; remember that the one main reason Americans thought they were being treated poorly was because they felt (perhaps correctly) that their ancient rights as Englishmen were being ignored. These are very deep seated rights, not just in Americans but in Englishmen in our entirety.
Personal liberty was originally an English idea, developed and changed somewhat by the Americans, however far different than French equality.

This goes back to the Magna Carta, at very least, and while perhaps delayed, I do not imagine it would remain dormant forever.

Edit: In retrospect, perhaps these liberties do not have anything directly to do with democracy, however if they were taken away by any non-democratic government I am sure there would be quite a bit of unhappiness and what not (The Cromwellian excursion might shed some light on the feeling), however personally, I would prefer the personal liberty of the 1700s and no vote than the vote and no personal liberty.

Edit 2: Reading over my post again, I realised I didn't even comment on the original question (which I apologise for.)
It really depends on how the war played out as the others have said. It depends on who is in power -- who has a say; remember that a lot of the opposition and even members of the governing party were against fighting our own colonial brethren, Wilberforce and Pitt Jr come to mind, and a fair amount of the populace was the same.

 

[Jaded_Railman]

As you noticed, I'm not talking about personal liberties, I'm talking about democracy. England in this time period was a very stratified, aristocratic society. America wasn't. They were, in many ways, like twin brothers who follow different paths in life. America was egalitarian and democratic, England was classist and aristocratic. Without the egalitarian example of a successful US and the multitude of American cousins, the popular democratic movement in England is going to evolve very differently and likely have a lot more difficult of a time achieving what they want.

 

[Thande]

I don't think so, not in the short term at least. Slaves probably would be emancipated at least in places but purely on pragmatic grounds (though it might lend strength to the abolitionist cause at home). The trouble is that if you look at history in Britain after the French Revolution, what had been a liberal state grew gradually more authoritarian until you ended up with Lord Liverpool, the Cato Street Conspiracy, habeas corpus being revoked etc. until it all blew up with Chartism and the Great Reform Act.

While America if it avoided the revolution at all might well be freer (though it depends on your definition of the term; taxes would be lower, at least), America that has revolted and then been suppressed would I think see the same kind of authoritarian reaction - especially if there's still a French Revolution in Europe to hammer the point home.

 

[Jaded_Railman]

I don't think so, not in the short term at least. Slaves probably would be emancipated at least in places but purely on pragmatic grounds (though it might lend strength to the abolitionist cause at home). The trouble is that if you look at history in Britain after the French Revolution, what had been a liberal state grew gradually more authoritarian until you ended up with Lord Liverpool, the Cato Street Conspiracy, habeas corpus being revoked etc. until it all blew up with Chartism and the Great Reform Act.

While America if it avoided the revolution at all might well be freer (though it depends on your definition of the term; taxes would be lower, at least), America that has revolted and then been suppressed would I think see the same kind of authoritarian reaction - especially if there's still a French Revolution in Europe to hammer the point home.

To go off track for a moment, it completely blows my mind that we have pictures of the Chartist protests. Fucking pictures. Not fancy paintings, not little pencil drawings, but damned photographs.

This is 1840's guys. Holy shit.

 

[usertron2020]

Yes It Matters...

Remember, the one third loyal, one third patriot, one third apathetic split is for the beginning of the war. What results depends very strongly on when the revolution is put down.

Regardless, for an idea of what happens to imperial provinces in the British Empire, look at Ireland. If the war ends in anything but a negotiated peace where the rebels have some sort of bargaining power, no, America is significantly less free than IOTL. More importantly than how the war ends, however, is the death of popular democracy in its cradle. Electoral reform in the UK was often driven by populist democratic movements in the US. The Reform of 1867, for instance, hinged on the outcome of the US Civil War in a lot of people's minds. The Chartist movement and the Reform of 1832 were part of a wider democratic upheaval in the English speaking world.

Without the US as an example of egalitarianism and popular democracy, the political evolution of the British Empire is going to be very, very different.

Anyone who thinks the US Civil War and its outcome had nothing to do with the Great Reform Act of 1867 need only check the dates. The Emancipation Declaration of Jan. 1, 1863 may not have freed a single slave (as history wags like to say) but the 14th, 15th, and 16th Amendments of the US Constitution are another matter entirely. In dazzling speed, the Blacks of the USA were guaranteed freedom from slavery forever, citizenship, AND THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR ALL MEN OF COLOR(Jim Crow wouldn't begin to come into effect until the late 1870's). This meant an illiterate ex-slave sharecropper had more rights as a human being than a self-taught textile worker in Birmingham, England. It's no wonder the poor excuse for enfranchisement Reform Act of 1866 was so universally rejected by the commoners of the UK and Parliament was forced to quickly go back to the drawing board for the Great Reform Act of 1867.

No way were "The Salt of England" going to tolerate "Sons of Africa" having more rights than the British people themselves.

 

[Awilla the Hun]

Now, usertron2020, in my opinion, you are quite wrong about the Second Reform Act.

Yes, public pressure existed. There were some organisations in favour of some reform: the Reform Union and Reform League. There were even a few riots-witness the Hyde Park riots, in which a few railings were broken down. (Violent revolution? Well, this is Britain, but not exactly Kennington Common or Newport Rising levels, are they?)

But the bill was heavily based on Disraeli trying to grab votes for the Conservative Party, to get to the "top of the greasy pole" of politics, as he called it. *rushes off to get history notes*

*comes back again* Right. Here we go. In sum as to why it was party politics, with a little dose of Dizzy vs Gladstone:

The Conservatives had not been in election since 1841, apart from three minority governments which got through due to divisions in the Liberal party. Parliamentary reform would, once again, divide the Liberals, thus furthering the government's life. This is partly shown in how the Conservatives managed to reform it in such a way as to ensure that they had lots of smaller seats, which they could win.

Now, on to Disareli: He, as a mere middle class converted Jew, who had opposed the Corn Laws, needed to secure himself as the heir to Lord Derby, the previous head of the Conservatives. As such, he was willing to accept many amendments to the bill, in order to get it through, win the election, and maintain his position. Almost anyone's, in fact, apart from Gladstone's. Before anyone mentions the words "Tory Democracy"-his supposed slogan-I would just like to remind them that he never used that term, but that it was invented by someone else.

Now, I know that a lower Sixth Form education (for I covered it then) has its limits, but I do not remember the American Civil War ever being mentioned the entire time we covered British political history. Being a "salt of England" (and, as you quote it, where did you come across that term? Or "Son of Africa"? I merely ask) had little to do with a group of politicians attempting to grab votes.

Of course, the fact that it failed to grab the Conservatives their precious votes is irrelevant.

 

[Rakhasa]

To go off track for a moment, it completely blows my mind that we have pictures of the Chartist protests. Fucking pictures. Not fancy paintings, not little pencil drawings, but damned photographs.

This is 1840's guys. Holy shit.

I vote we send that photo -with the UFO happily surveying the protests on the left to the chimney- to the ASB forum

 

[I Blame Communism]

I don't think so, not in the short term at least. Slaves probably would be emancipated at least in places but purely on pragmatic grounds (though it might lend strength to the abolitionist cause at home). The trouble is that if you look at history in Britain after the French Revolution, what had been a liberal state grew gradually more authoritarian until you ended up with Lord Liverpool, the Cato Street Conspiracy, habeas corpus being revoked etc. until it all blew up with Chartism and the Great Reform Act.

I agree. I think it's often forgotten that not only the British oligrachy, but also the autocratic states of Europe were in the 18th C making only very reserved use of censorship, secret police, and all that jazz. It's called "Reactionary tyranny" and not "Actionary Tyranny" for a reason, after all.

While America if it avoided the revolution at all might well be freer (though it depends on your definition of the term; taxes would be lower, at least), America that has revolted and then been suppressed would I think see the same kind of authoritarian reaction - especially if there's still a French Revolution in Europe to hammer the point home.

Agreed again.

 

[Claudius]

It seems to me (although I am definitely not up on 19th Century UK politics) that an American Revolution crushed early on by say a British victory at Saratoga or a Continental army completely defeated at Long Island or Trenton, would have so affected British politics that Dizzy or Gladstone might not ever have come to power. Lord North's Tories would have seemed to be vindicated and reformers like Burke and Pitt greatly weakened. At the very least the French Revolution might well have delayed indefinitely, and with no Napoleanic Wars with major effects on British politics. We are talking of serious butterflies here! Probably a much more conservative 19th Century, but possibly a far more radical political picture later on.

Doubtless the British would have looked less kindly on slavery than the southern US representatives did historically, but there is always the potential that British post-rebellion investment in southern cotton and tobacco plantations might have provided even greater resistance to Wilburforce in Parliament than experienced than IOTL

 

[usertron2020]

Looking Down, Looking Up

Now, usertron2020, in my opinion, you are quite wrong about the Second Reform Act.

Yes, public pressure existed. There were some organisations in favour of some reform: the Reform Union and Reform League. There were even a few riots-witness the Hyde Park riots, in which a few railings were broken down. (Violent revolution? Well, this is Britain, but not exactly Kennington Common or Newport Rising levels, are they?)

But the bill was heavily based on Disraeli trying to grab votes for the Conservative Party, to get to the "top of the greasy pole" of politics, as he called it. *rushes off to get history notes*

*comes back again* Right. Here we go. In sum as to why it was party politics, with a little dose of Dizzy vs Gladstone:

The Conservatives had not been in election since 1841, apart from three minority governments which got through due to divisions in the Liberal party. Parliamentary reform would, once again, divide the Liberals, thus furthering the government's life. This is partly shown in how the Conservatives managed to reform it in such a way as to ensure that they had lots of smaller seats, which they could win.

Now, on to Disareli: He, as a mere middle class converted Jew, who had opposed the Corn Laws, needed to secure himself as the heir to Lord Derby, the previous head of the Conservatives. As such, he was willing to accept many amendments to the bill, in order to get it through, win the election, and maintain his position. Almost anyone's, in fact, apart from Gladstone's. Before anyone mentions the words "Tory Democracy"-his supposed slogan-I would just like to remind them that he never used that term, but that it was invented by someone else.

Now, I know that a lower Sixth Form education (for I covered it then) has its limits, but I do not remember the American Civil War ever being mentioned the entire time we covered British political history. Being a "salt of England" (and, as you quote it, where did you come across that term? Or "Son of Africa"? I merely ask) had little to do with a group of politicians attempting to grab votes.

Of course, the fact that it failed to grab the Conservatives their precious votes is irrelevant.

I don't question the legislative/political history you have laid out one bit. But if you want, I will quote Alistair Cooke: "Growing up in the British school system, our education in American History stopped with the American Revolution. Apparently on the assumption that if they didn't need us, we didn't need them." So when you bring up the fact that the American Civil War wasn't ever being mentioned in British political history, I not only believe you but if you has said otherwise I WOULDN'T believe you!

I was describing a situation with a perspective looking from the bottom up. You did a most scholarly(and factually irrefutable) review of the events at the time from the top down.

Perhaps, in the long run, we are both right?

 

[T3h_shammy]

I agree there would be some negative consequences to British victory. Some colonial legislatures would be suspended, although for how long is unclear. (Consider Britain's hesitancy in suppressing legislatures in the assembly it controled OTL).

Guys like Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Adams are all put to death. That is a rather negative effect. And one that I can say won't help America be more free.

 

[BigWillyG]

If we're talking a world where the Patriots are defeated after the war has started and definately if its after years of war the US will be very unfree for a long time. The two failed revolutions show a rather vindictive England when it came to treasonous risings. The '45 was savagely put down and a forceful effort was made to destroy the highland way of life while Wolfe Tones rising ended with mass executions, pitchcapping and brutally suppressive laws. I don't see how a defeated America would be treated any better the Campbells had supported the Crown during the '45 and Irish regiments and fenctibles helped put down Wolfe Tone and you still had all the nastiness. If anything I could see many Loyalists and fencesitters getting screwed.

 

[I Blame Communism]

If we're talking a world where the Patriots are defeated after the war has started and definately if its after years of war the US will be very unfree for a long time. The two failed revolutions show a rather vindictive England when it came to treasonous risings.

Fun fact: a disproportionate number of British officers in the ARW, and those most enthusiastic about the "skin the bastards!" policy, were Scots.

And if you're going to bring up the '45, check the British order of battle for Culloden. You'll notice a lot of "XXth regiment of foot [now Royal Scots Fusiliers]."

when it came to treasonous risings. The '45 was savagely put down and a forceful effort was made to destroy the highland way of life

This is a myth. The highland "way of life" (language, habitation, system of agriculture and land-ownership) was destroyed starting in the 1810s by the Cheviot sheep.

What happened after 1745 was that a lot of people were shot (this is exagerrated: if you had been a flow-level rebel and you handed in your arms, you were supposed to get a pardon, whether or not thsi always happened in practice), and some things (kilts and bagpipes) which were genuinely considered to be dangerous weapons (this is pretty obvious, since they were issued to the British army, including in the ARW) were banned. The bans were lifted in the 1780s; and in the 1820s "highland" affectations became all the rage thanks to Scott, even while highland villages were vanishing, cleared out by landlords.

Some attempt is occasionally made to insist that had it not been for the '45, the "old clan system" would have prevented the clearences from happening. I don't buy it. Not every clan leader had his lands confiscated (plenty were pro-government) and it was their descendants who evicted people. Many families had only learned English in the last few generations at the time (English-teaching was a going industry in 18th C Scotland).

I don't see how a defeated America would be treated any better the Campbells had supported the Crown during the '45

"Only allowed to bear weapons as part of government-organised regiments, supposed "revolutionary symbols" proscribed for about 40 years?"

That's all that happened to 'em. What, do you think they were all murdered or their villages were demolished or something?

 

[BigWillyG]

Fun fact: a disproportionate number of British officers in the ARW, and those most enthusiastic about the "skin the bastards!" policy, were Scots.

And if you're going to bring up the '45, check the British order of battle for Culloden. You'll notice a lot of "XXth regiment of foot [now Royal Scots Fusiliers]."



This is a myth. The highland "way of life" (language, habitation, system of agriculture and land-ownership) was destroyed starting in the 1810s by the Cheviot sheep.

What happened after 1745 was that a lot of people were shot (this is exagerrated: if you had been a flow-level rebel and you handed in your arms, you were supposed to get a pardon, whether or not thsi always happened in practice), and some things (kilts and bagpipes) which were genuinely considered to be dangerous weapons (this is pretty obvious, since they were issued to the British army, including in the ARW) were banned. The bans were lifted in the 1780s; and in the 1820s "highland" affectations became all the rage thanks to Scott, even while highland villages were vanishing, cleared out by landlords.

Some attempt is occasionally made to insist that had it not been for the '45, the "old clan system" would have prevented the clearences from happening. I don't buy it. Not every clan leader had his lands confiscated (plenty were pro-government) and it was their descendants who evicted people. Many families had only learned English in the last few generations at the time (English-teaching was a going industry in 18th C Scotland).



"Only allowed to bear weapons as part of government-organised regiments, supposed "revolutionary symbols" proscribed for about 40 years?"

That's all that happened to 'em. What, do you think they were all murdered or their villages were demolished or something?

How many of said skinning officers were Lowlanders though? Pre-45 Scotland has the Lowlands and Highlands being 2 very different cultures. The Lowlanders were also strongly anti-Jacobite as well. I believe that regiment had fought against Jacobites going back to the wars immediately after the Glorious revolution.

It may have been only 40 years but it still destroyed a lot. In 1775-76 the Highland Loyalists who lost at Moore's Creek were mostly veterans of the French and Indian War and were still barred from kilts and tartans while living in the American colonies thousands of miles from the Highlands.
I'm not sure about your arguments about the clearences because without a disarmed and pacified Highlands the economic developements which cause the clearences aren't happening.

I stand by my argument as well because the way Wolfe Tones rising was put down truly was hellish. It's closer chronologically to ARW and has similar Enlightenment ideology as well.

 

[Alratan]

If the revolution is defeated early enough that the French don't bankrupt themself in the process, then the French Revoloution is prevented or delayed. Without this Britiain will stay on its previous liberal course, as it won't have been discredited by Jacobin excesses.

 

[I Blame Communism]

How many of said skinning officers were Lowlanders though? Pre-45 Scotland has the Lowlands and Highlands being 2 very different cultures. The Lowlanders were also strongly anti-Jacobite as well. I believe that regiment had fought against Jacobites going back to the wars immediately after the Glorious revolution.

Some, but by no means all. The Black Watch had their legend made by the ARW. It's very likley not coincidence that Highland dress and the pipes were legalised for civilian use just as the war was winding up. And of course the Highlands provided a disproportionate number of soldiers from Wolfe onwards. That was a function of the differant society there.

And the Black Watch was originally the mechanism in which the pro-government clansmen "watched" the Highlands without breaking the rules. Jacobitism was never the rule in the Higlands. The Highlands was simply a relative stronghold, but plenty of Highlanders were on the Crown's side.

Scotland in the 1770s had changed a lot in the three decades since the '45.

It may have been only 40 years but it still destroyed a lot. In 1775-76 the Highland Loyalists who lost at Moore's Creek were mostly veterans of the French and Indian War and were still barred from kilts and tartans while living in the American colonies thousands of miles from the Highlands.

The kilt was, again, genuinely considered to be a weapon, and therefore controlled.The Highland troops in America in the 1760s wore full kilt. Check any illustration of Wolfe's campaigns, never mind the ARW.

I'm not sure about your arguments about the clearences because without a disarmed and pacified Highlands the economic developements which cause the clearences aren't happening.

What are the Highlanders going to do, kill off every Cheviot they see? Hang the landlord's man? Eviction wasn't always pretty as it was. But the landlords will still be landlords (as I said, plenty of families had held their lands since well before 1745) and they will still be quite capable of chucking people out.

And in any case, assuming for a moment that the Clearences wouldn't have happened without the '45, that doesn't mean the crackdown was intended to set the stage for depopulating economic developments seven decades later.

I stand by my argument as well because the way Wolfe Tones rising was put down truly was hellish. It's closer chronologically to ARW and has similar Enlightenment ideology as well.

I'm not adressing any argument about the treatment of defeated revolutionaries; I'm dismissing some well-worn myths about my country's history.