Is America Freer if it loses the Revolution?

[Incognitia]

I think the critical points are two-fold:

1) Whether the revolution is defeated rapidly and relatively bloodlessly, or after a long and difficult struggle.

2) Whether the French Revolution is butterflied away, or at least postponed.

Comparisons with the '45 are somewhat invidious because, even if the crushing of the Highlands after the '45 is NOT traditionally exaggerated, the fact is that the '45 genuinely scared government ministers in London for their own safety. Charlie's boys never GOT to London; they never even came that close; but for a while those in power were genuinely scared. In the aftermath of a Colonial Revolt in North America, the London government will at no point have been concerned for it's own continued functioning.
Thus to argue that the repression will go much beyond a temporary pro-roguing of local assemblies, and execution of ring-leaders I think assumes a vindictiveness which would be unlikely to exist.

Also, don't under-estimate the power of not doing what the French are doing.
The founding text of British conservatism, was Burke's excoriation of the French Revolution. If that revolution doesn't happen, and the excesses of the revolution thus also are delayed/avoided, conservative forces in Britain will be less divided, and liberal ones less dis-credited. This is likely to have a beneficial impact for the American colonists.

 

[jkay]

Blacks and especially native americans would surely be better off.

BUT. There are a few basic sources of long-term conflict that won't got away.
o) If they yield us Parliamentary seats, they realize the Empire will eventually become an American rather than a British one, and were afraid rather than courageous.
o) Britons were accustomed to having elected representatives decide on tax levels, and kept that when they immigrated here.
o) American settlers had a way of provoking war on behalf of the Empire, both against ethnically cleaned native americans and other European powers.

Solving those problems from London's POV would take a perpetual crackdown by London. White colonials would certainly have had to've lost plenty of rights.

Britain'd decide taxes and money for us, all without representation. The PM'ed helpfully choose campaign donors with little interest or knowledge to govern as governors (the scum don't need FOOD, surely?). We wouldn't be much better off than India.

We'd have full-time occupation troops, also like India, with all the petty tyrannies that entails.

Land ownership would surely tightly watched, to keep us from continuing to cause wars by ethnic cleansing and territorial expansion into other powers' turf, or to create new settlements farther from authority and in a position to raise the American white body count above the British.

British businesses and economic practice already discriminated against Americans, but that'd become worse, because plenty of key kinds of American businesses, notably banks and stock exchanges, likely would operate under heavy restriction if atall, as happened elsewhere. All American factories close to garrsons would be shut.

 

[Faeelin]

Solving those problems from London's POV would take a perpetual crackdown by London.

Sicne Britain didn't arguably solve any of those problems OTL, what will chagne?

There were American governors in OTL as well, and they didn't decide "Bwahaha, down with property rights of Americans!" as you seem to suggest.

 

[BigWillyG]

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.= QUOTE]

How many of those troops came because of the horrible conditions in the Highlands though? Also remember the Highland mercenary tradition going back to the galloglaich of the late medieval period. The British army in this time is often the last place for people facing unemployment and starvation. Half the English regiments in the war were filled with starving weavers put out of business by the early Industrial Revolution. Post-'98 many man who fought as United Ireland ended up fighting with Wellington because a redcoat was better then starving in a defeated Ireland.

genuinely considered to be a weapon, [/I]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.=QUOTE]

I know the highland regiments wore kilts but there's a difference between government troops being allowed their uniform and everyone else being suppressed.

intended [/I]to set the stage for depopulating economic developments seven decades later.=QUOTE]

.


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

You have an interesting point on the Clearences being butterflied away by no '45. I believe that would be the case as I doubt businessmen from the Lowlands or England are going to want to risk capital in an area which rightly or not is seen as dangerous and unstable. Would make a good thread.

 

[BigWillyG]

Faeleen- I think Jkay means that the Proclamation of 1763 is going to be strictly enforced which is probably right, especially if the Indians were a major part of the Crown victory.

 

[BigWillyG]

I think the critical points are two-fold:

1) Whether the revolution is defeated rapidly and relatively bloodlessly, or after a long and difficult struggle.

2) Whether the French Revolution is butterflied away, or at least postponed.

Comparisons with the '45 are somewhat invidious because, even if the crushing of the Highlands after the '45 is NOT traditionally exaggerated, the fact is that the '45 genuinely scared government ministers in London for their own safety. Charlie's boys never GOT to London; they never even came that close; but for a while those in power were genuinely scared. In the aftermath of a Colonial Revolt in North America, the London government will at no point have been concerned for it's own continued functioning.
Thus to argue that the repression will go much beyond a temporary pro-roguing of local assemblies, and execution of ring-leaders I think assumes a vindictiveness which would be unlikely to exist.

Also, don't under-estimate the power of not doing what the French are doing.
The founding text of British conservatism, was Burke's excoriation of the French Revolution. If that revolution doesn't happen, and the excesses of the revolution thus also are delayed/avoided, conservative forces in Britain will be less divided, and liberal ones less dis-credited. This is likely to have a beneficial impact for the American colonists.

I'm really not sure about a soft peace in any scenario where the war goes beyond 1776. The longer the war goes on the nastier the peace will be I imagine.
I don't know about Britain being afraid. London may not worry about American troops arriving but they were worried about losing the Empire they just fought the French for. South Africa was far away to and that didn't stop the concentration camps in an era where pictures of them ended up in the international press.
If the French don't get involved the French Revolution is butterflied away so I don't think the mindset to "not do what the French are doing" will be there.

 

[I Blame Communism]

How many of those troops came because of the horrible conditions in the Highlands though?

"Horrible?" The pre-Clearence Highlands were bumping the limit of how many people they could support, so families were keen to pack off second sons and have more corft to divide up. That's not a result of British policy.

Also remember the Highland mercenary tradition going back to the galloglaich of the late medieval period.

While it's very stereotypical to imagine that nothing had changed since the late medieval period, this is a stronger point. Another incentive to join was the opportunity to wear the prestigious kilt.

The British army in this time is often the last place for people facing unemployment and starvation. Half the English regiments in the war were filled with starving weavers put out of business by the early Industrial Revolution.

"English" (or "Lowland") being the key word here. In the Highlands, soldiering had the prestige of a military tradition and, as I said, performed the social function of getting people off the land. It wasn't uncommon for men resolved to go for a soldier to go to several recruiting stations and compare bounties for the regiments.

I know the highland regiments wore kilts but there's a difference between government troops being allowed their uniform and everyone else being suppressed.

...Yes. That is exactly what I have been saying.

You have an interesting point on the Clearences being butterflied away by no '45. I believe that would be the case as I doubt businessmen from the Lowlands or England are going to want to risk capital in an area which rightly or not is seen as dangerous and unstable. Would make a good thread.

This is how the process worked:

1) The landlord will offer you some money to go to Glasgow or Australia or some other semi-civilised frontier area D).

2) If you don't like this, his men may hurl you out and set fire to your croft.

3) He will buy some sheep and graze them.

The capital here is minimal, which figures, since landlords were bringing in the sheep to save them from ruin: people were already being squeezed for rent. Capital from the south barely entered the equation.

 

[BigWillyG]

Just a thought. With most of the questions revolving around whether or not London would make a harsh peace, how much nastiness and oppression would occur without London's ok? Most of the atrocities during the war occured in the civil war between Patriots and Loyalists. After a British victory how many Loyalists would settle old scores?

 

[BigWillyG]

"Horrible?" The pre-Clearence Highlands were bumping the limit of how many people they could support, so families were keen to pack off second sons and have more corft to divide up. That's not a result of British policy.



While it's very stereotypical to imagine that nothing had changed since the late medieval period, this is a stronger point. Another incentive to join was the opportunity to wear the prestigious kilt.


I didn't say nothing has changed from the medieval period, I'm saying there's a history of mercenary service which starts at that point. If you'd like closer to the 18th century remember how many Scots (Highland and Lowland) took part in the Thirty Years War. In the 18th century the French Army had the Garde Ecossaise which fought at Culloden and was only disbanded in 1830 and a number of Scots served in the Prussian and Russian militaries. I'll agree with you a big part of this is the culture which glorifies military service as you described as the reason for the Black Watch and other Highland Regiments different recruitment from English units.











This is how the process worked:

1) The landlord will offer you some money to go to Glasgow or Australia or some other semi-civilised frontier area D).

2) If you don't like this, his men may hurl you out and set fire to your croft.

3) He will buy some sheep and graze them.

The capital here is minimal, which figures, since landlords were bringing in the sheep to save them from ruin: people were already being squeezed for rent. Capital from the south barely entered the equation.

Does this happen though in a Highlands where Chieftains still have private armies and haven't morphed into simple landlords? The Highland peasant is probably still in bad shape due to the overpopulation but it would be different from the Clearences.

 

[Kenichiro Harada]

I sort of thought that if the Revolution failed..George Washington,Benjamin Franklin would be hanged for being traitors. I doubt the British would want them alive,because some might feel sympathy for them and free them or something.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Does this happen though in a Highlands where Chieftains still have private armies and haven't morphed into simple landlords? The Highland peasant is probably still in bad shape due to the overpopulation but it would be different from the Clearences.

We have to assume that the private armies are still there by the time the Clearences roll around, which is questionable. The British state was establishing itself more and more firmly. You have to remember that Scotland had until fairly recently in 1745 been an unofficial seperate fief. The union had been initially wobbly and the solution was a powerful unofficial Scottish executive that carefully guarded the old system (the CoS and so on) while opening up huge job proespects for the overeducated Scots. Speaking of which, the appeal of Anglicisation will remain just as strong.

 

[BigWillyG]

We have to assume that the private armies are still there by the time the Clearences roll around, which is questionable. The British state was establishing itself more and more firmly. You have to remember that Scotland had until fairly recently in 1745 been an unofficial seperate fief. The union had been initially wobbly and the solution was a powerful unofficial Scottish executive that carefully guarded the old system (the CoS and so on) while opening up huge job proespects for the overeducated Scots. Speaking of which, the appeal of Anglicisation will remain just as strong.

Good point. I need to make a thread for a Highlands and Britain without the '45.

 

[Jaded_Railman]

I think the critical points are two-fold:

1) Whether the revolution is defeated rapidly and relatively bloodlessly, or after a long and difficult struggle.

2) Whether the French Revolution is butterflied away, or at least postponed.

Comparisons with the '45 are somewhat invidious because, even if the crushing of the Highlands after the '45 is NOT traditionally exaggerated, the fact is that the '45 genuinely scared government ministers in London for their own safety. Charlie's boys never GOT to London; they never even came that close; but for a while those in power were genuinely scared. In the aftermath of a Colonial Revolt in North America, the London government will at no point have been concerned for it's own continued functioning.
Thus to argue that the repression will go much beyond a temporary pro-roguing of local assemblies, and execution of ring-leaders I think assumes a vindictiveness which would be unlikely to exist.

Also, don't under-estimate the power of not doing what the French are doing.
The founding text of British conservatism, was Burke's excoriation of the French Revolution. If that revolution doesn't happen, and the excesses of the revolution thus also are delayed/avoided, conservative forces in Britain will be less divided, and liberal ones less dis-credited. This is likely to have a beneficial impact for the American colonists.

The British swing away from the Whigs happened with the revival of something approximating autocracy with George III (when he was sane, at least), not with Burke and Napoleon. It was one of the things that helped prompt the American Revolution in the first place: The British state was taking itself seriously again, trying to actually enforce the imperialistic laws it had always had with relation to the American colonies.

And guys, let's not forget that. An America that stays under the British is still going to be under the Navigation Laws. It's still going to be severely under-developed because there will still be a ban on colonial banking. Don't forget that America was already going in the direction or unfree, which is why they rebelled.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Why assume that blacks are better off?

Saying that slavery would be abolished in the South in 1833 along with the rest of the Empire is over-simplistic.

The Southern planter class could provide more muscle for anti-abolition forces in the British Parliament. Even without official representation, there's a lot of $$ there.

We might end of seeing an overall delay in abolition all across the British Empire as a result.

 

[jkay]

Since Britain didn't arguably solve any of those problems OTL, what will chagne

The change, Faelin, had already happened. After centuries of realizing benevolent neglect and cooperation was better than war and occupation and heavy-handedness, the UK decided to go to war to protect its tax interests and legal superiority over the British colonists' rights . If they'd won the war, supporting the idea that crackdowns can succeed, surely the government would've set in place a long-term policy of occupation, American inferiority, and taking away American rights at least on the conflicting fronts. Otherwise, why go to war?

It was King George III's idea, but he created/found alot of Parliamentary support on the grounds of Parliament wanting its superiority without being willing to yield seats to an America that would outgrow the UK.

 

[BigWillyG]

Why assume that blacks are better off?

Saying that slavery would be abolished in the South in 1833 along with the rest of the Empire is over-simplistic.

The Southern planter class could provide more muscle for anti-abolition forces in the British Parliament. Even without official representation, there's a lot of $$ there.

We might end of seeing an overall delay in abolition all across the British Empire as a result.

I'd agree. It would also depend on how the war is won. If the British win in part due to regiments made of slaves you might see earlier abolition but if they win do to Loyalism in the South say in the dark days of 1780 the planter loyalists will have a lot of power to block emancipation.

 

[Faeelin]

The change, Faelin, had already happened. After centuries of realizing benevolent neglect and cooperation was better than war and occupation and heavy-handedness, the UK decided to go to war to protect its tax interests and legal superiority over the British colonists' rights . If they'd won the war, supporting the idea that crackdowns can succeed, surely the government would've set in place a long-term policy of occupation, American inferiority, and taking away American rights at least on the conflicting fronts.

I will grant the Tories would try to paint a grueling war and subsequent occupation as a "victory", but I am not sure if most people would see it as such; Lord North certainly didn't.

 

[Faeelin]

Why assume that blacks are better off?

Saying that slavery would be abolished in the South in 1833 along with the rest of the Empire is over-simplistic.

I agree. But I'm mostly curious about the effects of British support in Sotuerhn colonies including a cadre of armed free blacks.

 

[Mark E.]

We must remember that the demeanor of slavery in 1790 was different from that of 1850. George Washington himself, though a slave owner, thought the practice would soon become obsolete. After all, many slaves were being freed before 1800 because the tobacco industry had matured and the grower-families did not want to keep supporting them. With continuing British control, the more cruel corporate slavery of the decades after 1820 does not happen.

The big changes come as the Louisiana Purchase and War of 1812 are butterflied away. The American States may become conjoined with Canada, so the Empire will extend coast to coast, but without Louisiana, the Missouri River valley, Texas, California, the Gulf Coast or the Rockies south of today's "northern tier" states.

The industrial revolution moves through the nineteenth century, and America achieves a Canada-like independence with a parliamentary government structure. The twentieth century poses problems: the mineral and fuel resources of the gulf coast and Rockies are not part of the country. America becomes a net importer much earlier.

European immigration patterns change. Germanic and Slavic nations might arise around Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska and the Dakotas where English speaking settlers did not occupy and France could no longer administer. In short, you have a very different map of North America by the twentieth century.

Edit: The Cherokee Trail of Tears march never happens because Oklahoma is not part of America, and native Americans remain in Georgia and Alabama.

Missouri becomes a very interesting region, as it might reflect the Rhineland between France and Germany. After all, German settlers felt the Missouri River more or less resembled the Rhine where it formed the border of the Ozarks. Oh, yes, Ozark retains its original spelling "Aux-Arcs" and Washita remains Ouachita. Think of the impact on the European political instability that brought about World War I.

 

[Thande]

I agree. But I'm mostly curious about the effects of British support in Sotuerhn colonies including a cadre of armed free blacks.

As soon as it becomes politically more valuable to appease the southern planters, that would probably be undone as easily as Reconstruction was in OTL.

Re the point about Americans outnumbering Britons in Parliament: I think American self-rule is pretty much inevitable for this reason. The way events panned out in my TL meant it was that way from the start, but I think it's going to happen at some point even if it starts as a "united Empire with one Parliament" setup. Particularly since British MPs rubbing shoulders with Americans will help them realise that Americans aren't just British people who happen to live in America (as happened later on in OTL with Australia), they have culturally diverged and thus it's alarming to think of them being the majority in a united state.