No American or French Revolutions: what happens with nationalism and the HRE?

[El_Presidente]

So, both the American Revolution and the French Revolution fail through a mixture of luck on the counterrevolutionary side and compromise; the British colonies in America get representation and, eventually, autonomy, and the French monarchy ends up reforming into a "constitutional" monarchy similar to the British one, albeit a bit more powerful.
Now, without a testing ground for liberalist ideas and, more importantly, without the Napoleonic Wars, what would happen with nationalism and the HRE? How would nationalism appear, if at all? And if it develops, how would the HRE respond to such thing?

 

[Analytical Engine]

European nationalism was accelerated by the French Revolution, but it still existed before then. At best, the unification of Germany and Italy is slower, and possibly still incomplete.

The smaller states of Germany might either form regional unions, or get absorbed into their larger neighbours. Germany might end up something like the EU, or Switzerland, rather than the German Empire.

As for Italy, it might either remain divided, or be united like Germany - with the local monarchs still in place, under an Italian Emperor or King, rather than being annexed directly. I could see there being maybe three or four Italian states - a Savoyard-led north Italy, an independent Venice, a still-independent Two Sicilies and possibly an independent rump Papal state, or something like that.

However, it all depends on how they unite.

Enlightened Despotism probably remains in place for longer, with democracy either expanding more slowly, or with disaffected liberals and anti-establishment thinkers having longer to stew, might end up being overthrown in a 1848-style series of revolutions.

 

[sendô]

How the American Independence War fails in important, and when.

A big contributing factor to the French Revolution was France's involvement in the American war, including subsequent expenditure that France could not afford. No French involvement in said war could butterfly away the need for the Estates-Generale, although France was deep in dept anyway due to the previous 7YW.

 

[El_Presidente]

How the American Independence War fails in important, and when.

A big contributing factor to the French Revolution was France's involvement in the American war, including subsequent expenditure that France could not afford. No French involvement in said war could butterfly away the need for the Estates-Generale, although France was deep in dept anyway due to the previous 7YW.

I'm in no means an expert on the period, so maybe what I say it's implausible or based upon wrong assumptions, but I thought on the British discovering the impending insurrection early enough than though they crack down on the would be revolutionaries there is no "war" beyond localized rebellions that over time the British crush; after that, to prevent future dissent, the British eventually give the colonies representation (in exchange of the colonists paying the same taxes as any britons).

 

[mjwebb76]

The basic issue with representation is Parliament is that it would destabilize the existing order. By the mid 18th century Parliament was highly unrepresentative. For example, some constituencies in Cornwall only had a dozen voters while the city of Manchester (tens of thousands of people) had zero constituencies. This was "somewhat" fixed in the Great Reform of 1832. However, it is rather obvious why giving a constituency to Boston would raise issues with cities back in Britain that lacked a constituency. In other words the forces (mostly landed aristocracy) that opposed reform from 1750 onward would even more vigorously oppose giving parliamentary membership to the colonies (and for basically the same reasons). Its also important to remember that the Lords were far more important in this time period. Therefore, to truly have representation you will need a non-trivial number of American Peers. Historically, there was hesitancy about creating too many Peers (as this would dilute the value of a Peerage). I am not saying these problems are insurmountable, but you should take them into account rather than just assume that the colonists could be given some representatives in Parliament.

 

[El_Presidente]

The basic issue with representation is Parliament is that it would destabilize the existing order. By the mid 18th century Parliament was highly unrepresentative. For example, some constituencies in Cornwall only had a dozen voters while the city of Manchester (tens of thousands of people) had zero constituencies. This was "somewhat" fixed in the Great Reform of 1832. However, it is rather obvious why giving a constituency to Boston would raise issues with cities back in Britain that lacked a constituency. In other words the forces (mostly landed aristocracy) that opposed reform from 1750 onward would even more vigorously oppose giving parliamentary membership to the colonies (and for basically the same reasons). Its also important to remember that the Lords were far more important in this time period. Therefore, to truly have representation you will need a non-trivial number of American Peers. Historically, there was hesitancy about creating too many Peers (as this would dilute the value of a Peerage). I am not saying these problems are insurmountable, but you should take them into account rather than just assume that the colonists could be given some representatives in Parliament.

As I said, my knowledge of the the period is rather limited, so thanks for teaching me about it (idk if this comes out as rude or something, but I'm truly grateful, so if it it sounds rude blame it on my limited knowledge of the english language).
In any case, the question itself is not if that way of avoiding the American Revolution it's plausible in itself, but what the lack of the Revolution would mean regarding nationalism; do you have anything to say about that?
Again, it's not my intention to sound rude, so sorry if I do.

 

[Born in the USSA]

I remember a thread a couple months ago about creating the most complicated system of government possible. It was basically a version of the HRE where the franchise only expanded by tacking on different legislative bodies for bankers/craftsmen/what have you with narrow membership qualifications and really specific lawmaking powers. A system with "broad" representation sliced into career-specific chunks of the electorate would be a weirdly illiberal reform, creating additional regimented pillars of society rather than just giving the poors a chance to pick the people in charge.

 

[sendô]

The other issue with American MPs and Lords sitting in Parliament in Westminster is the time lag - that is in the age of sail ships it can take several weeks to cross the Atlantic. Any American representative cannot easily both communicate with his constituents and be a part of government.

If the British were to set up some sort of local parliament in the Americas, they've as good as handed independence over anyway.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Absent the French Revolution and more importantly Napoleon then Herder's Romantic notions of a pan-german linguistic nationalism may hold sway. So I suspect that you would see an alt-1848 (and possibly much earlier) which may turn more not less violent without the horrors of the French revolution to warn the revolutionaries off. It's unlikely to succeed for the reasons 1848 failed but it may lead to an eventual Greater Germany rather than the division between A-H and Prussia as IOTL.

 

[cjc]

The other issue with American MPs and Lords sitting in Parliament in Westminster is the time lag - that is in the age of sail ships it can take several weeks to cross the Atlantic. Any American representative cannot easily both communicate with his constituents and be a part of government.

If the British were to set up some sort of local parliament in the Americas, they've as good as handed independence over anyway.

Best bet would probably gust have parlamint in each colony instead of one for all of British north America, problem being ofcorse that the idea of creating sepret parlamints in the colonys woulnt equal independence wasn't a thing until the 1850's.

 

[funnyhat]

Best bet would probably gust have parlamint in each colony instead of one for all of British north America, problem being ofcorse that the idea of creating sepret parlamints in the colonys woulnt equal independence wasn't a thing until the 1850's.

The colonies already had their own assemblies (together with a royal governor).

 

[Frrf]

I certainly don't see the HRE going anywhere without the trauma and upheaval of the Napoleonic Wars. It had existed for a thousand years and people seem to have genuinely identified with it. There's a reason that the 1848 Reichstag was held in Frankfurt-am-Main, where the old Reichstag sat and elected Emperors. An interesting effect of this may be a continued survival and evolution of corporatism as a system of rights in contrast to the universal rights put forward by French and British liberals. This philosophical difference could make for an interesting ideological contrast as the 19th Century rolls over into the 20th. Also given the decentralised nature of the HRE and the complex web of alliances its subjects tended to build, and the animosity between the British and French crowns, and the general distance of pre-Napoleonic Russia from Western European affairs, one might never see anything equivalent to the World Wars, or any total war, but rather a continuation of the system of war and diplomacy of the 18th Century in which a short, sharp conflict with a few battles would then be followed by negotiations and a transfer of territory/money/whatever that was enough to satisfy the victor without crippling the loser.