Make Rum, Not War (Paris Peace, 1763)

Another what-if suggested by Sir Winston's History of the English Speaking Peoples, which is full of hypothetical asides. During the 1763 negotiations to end the Seven Years' War against France:

"In the West Indies the richest prize of the war, the sugar island of Guadeloupe, was also handded back, together with Martinique, Belle Isle, and St Lucia. Guadaloupe was so rich that the English Government even considered keeping it and in exchange returning Canada to the French."

To keep things a little more even, let's say that Great Britain's negotiators decided to hold on to Guadeloupe and Martinique, handing back St. Lucia and Canada. Within a few years, it would become clear that a pair of rum-producing islands, though profitable, were no match for half a continent.

So. French Canada. The first changes on the horizon would be the Six Nations of the Iroquois, who found themselves in a quite favorable position between friendly Brits and French who no longer were interested in linking their colony with the Mississippi valley. The British colonists were no doubt still hungry for their land, but they now could switch sides and ally with the French if need be.

Next: the unpleasantness surrounding taxation in America. French Canada would not necessarily butterfly those away, but the British Government could use continued presence of an enemy colony colony to justify a policy of closer control in the colonies. Maybe all this would accomplish woud be to make things come to a head faster. A revolution in, say, 1770?

The war. Totally different dynamic here. Even more so than OTL, it would be seen as Chapter 9,436 of the Neverending Franco-British Global Struggle. France would have an immediate stake in the outcome of the rebellion and may not wait to give aid to the colonists against Britain.

Finally, the Loyalists. No Loyal British Canada to flee to anymore. England or Nova Scotia, I suppose, unless Nova Scotia falls to the French.
 
But the presence of French Canada WOULD justify things to the Americans. In OTL, the Americans had a problem with being taxed to counter a threat that wasn't there anymore.

I TTL, you'd see FAR less popular support for the rebels, and if the French intervene on the rebel side, invading from Canada, well you'd see popular support fall even more...
 
Hm, good point. More loyalty for the Empire. So there may be a British-French war breaking out sometime a little later... 1780s? Interesting.
 
If the American revolution was avoided, then you'd probably see some kind of European War break out.

It might be tied in with the war of Bavarian Succession, which occured during the American revolution.

However, seeing as how there would be increased taxation but a remaining French threat, you'd probably see some kind of negotiation between London and the colonies to try and make the situation more sustainable.
 
When I see this sort of thing though, wouldnt the British Army, the next time Britain and France fight each other (and if you look at the mesh of alliances and blocs on the Continent it seems pretty inevitable, somehow), wouldnt they just take it back again, 'realise their mistake'? After all, then you have both the island of Guadeloupe and Canada....butterfly the American Revolution away with the retaining of the latter colony and perhaps you have a secure, British North America....which actually justifies its name...

Tony Jones's Monarchy World has this as a major part, which contributes to its awsomeness... :D

And no France to worry about, either... :D:D:D:D
 
There's a flipside in the colonies of taking Guadeloupe & Martinique and giving up Canada: the Americans would be outraged. It would crown a host of abuses in previous wars in which the colonists would have felt slighted. It would increase the tensions created by wartime arrangements for military command (the British C-in-C). The issue here is less the Americans protesting about paying for a defense they feel they don't need and more the Americans contributing (milita service, etc) to a cause that has been betrayed. This feeling would be tremendously complicated because the war had marked such a high-point of "imperial patriotism"--the pride of the American colonies in being (as they thought) true Britons.

It's also worth noting that a significant portion of the debate in Britain over taking Canada or the Caribbean islands included a debate on the future of the "American" colonies: predicitions that their population and its propensity for natural increase would make them forever unruly (or destined for independence, depending on which pamphlets you read). Hence, the British in choosing to keep Guadelope & Martinique and allow the French to stay in Canada will be quite consciously making the choice in the context of their relations with the American colonies.

The outcome of all these dynamics will ultimately hinge first upon British politics. Both Tory and Whig politicos agreed about the need for some sort of reform of the imperial administration: they just differed on how to accopmlish the reform and what need chaning. Similarly, whereas the Whigs and the Americans were concerned with the constitutional questions, the Tories and imperial adminstrators were concerned with ensuring an effective military command, collecting taxes, and enforcing the law. [This is of course a gross exaggeration and over-simplification: it's simply to say that no one, on either side of the Atlantic, views the situation in the British Empire in 1754 as an acceptable status quo.]

My thoughts would be that while the American's frustration with the British "betrayal" may speed up the processes that led to the Revolution, they may also diffuse them: if things happen faster, than the process of becoming discontented may not lead the colonies to view themselves as a United front. If so, then while some of the colonies may revolt, that revolt is not bound to take the form it did OTL. Indeed, it may be more likely that the British are able to better divide the colonies' loyalties. Furthermore, an exacerbated, earlier crisis may be just enough to prompt some sort of compromise (an Albany Plan like Union, a Burkean Conciliatory Act, etc).
 
Bumped.

Nico, I hadn't read your response a month ago, somehow. Thank you for it.

I like the idea of protests in 1763. The colonists would feel betrayed - risking our lives to eradicate the French threat... and now you allow said threat to stay put, just to make a little more money off of rum?

So. With the colonies already hopping mad, especially in the north, does Parliament even try anything like the Stamp Act in the 60s? Maybe it moves reform to the top priority - let's get the administration sorted out first, and then worry about taxes.
 
Top