Longer, bloodier American Revolution

Awhile back, I read Jeremy Black's book on the US revolutionary war, where he noted that a drawn-out, bloody, but ultimately successful (think Latin America OTL)conflict was the most likely trigger for a Social Revolution.
Offhand, the RN defeating De Grasse in 1781 and then reinforcing Cornwallis at Yorktown seems the easiest POD.
If that did lead to a longer, costlier war and ultimately a US Social Revolution, what might the effects be for Europe and other areas?
 
I don't think a social revolution becomes more likely with a longer Revolutionary War. Except in very specific cases, the colonists were revolting against British political control of the colonies, not the economic or religious organization of the colonies. Though the longer the conflict continues, the greater the chance that such issues can come into play. With a longer conflict even peripheral issues can take on a greater importance.

IMHO, a more "radical" revolution would involve some kind of junta or dictatorship coming to power, similar to what happened in the English Civil War, or in South America. A longer conflict means more soldiers spending more time together commiserating about their dissatisfaction with the Continental Congress. Even IOTL there were half hearted plots for a coup against the Congress. If the war continued a few more years, there would be far more soldiers at arms, and more grievances accumulated against their government.

As for what course a military government of the American colonies would take, I have very little idea. I am confident that the chances of certain colonies splitting off on their own, or forming their own confederations becomes much higher with an unrepresentative government in power, especially since the interests of many colonies were often at odds, and a centralized political leadership would have to side with certain states over others on issues such as tariffs.
 
Soc.history.what-if has done this a number of times. The most interesting one asked the question of a retreat of the US Government and armed forces to a National Redoubt and entering a period of dictatorial war capitalism. (Similar to some of the analyses of the NFL/PRG/DRVN situation in 1954–1976).

* * *

One of the things to consider is that the most likely form of social revolution would not be a social revolution in favour of socialism. The size and militance of the US working class suggests that it is foolish to be expecting a proletarian social revolution in *1795 as the last vestiges of the US State and these United States economies crumble. The Whiskey Rebellion or Peterloo give you useful maximums.

One should consider, instead, France. If the US State and these United States are strong enough to last, but weak enough to fail, then expect a Committee of Respublican Safety, or a Bonaparte; either manipulating the mobility of Boston.

(Perhaps we are too influenced by Roux, Fox, Spithead and the Nore—we assume far too much proletarian influence in the era).

What would happen? Fire, blood, suffering, hanging and gibbetting.

* * *

A failed 1776 does of course mean a horrific *1798 in three locations throughout the empire. The conditions for the United Kingdom to maintain control of the colonies are effectively those needed to repress Ireland. For a truly proletarian social revolution in the Colonies, wait until *1848.

yours,
Sam R.
 
Top