No French help American revolution

It's theoretically possible but the Revolution was such a close run thing in our timeline. It was the foreign powers - especially the French - who supplied the arms for the Americans. Without them, the Continentals wouldn't have lasted long term.

The only way I could see it is if 1775 goes even better for the Americans. Breed's Hill doesn't get taken and costs even more British lives. Quebec falls to the Americans and the rest of the province joins the revolution. That way, Britain has too big a hill to climb.
 
the supply situation and the continental abilities to combat the British was not there without the foreign aid they received. unless Canada and Quebec also rebelled which is very very unlikely, it would not likely succeed without a serious change in their approach.
 
It would be funny if a drawn out war in America leads to revolution in England.

I've always liked the idea of a continued British rule in America leading to the tail wagging the dog, eventually culminating in a republican revolution in Britain to turn it into a federation while the royal family flees and the Hanoverian dynasty continues in America.
 
I've always liked the idea of a continued British rule in America leading to the tail wagging the dog, eventually culminating in a republican revolution in Britain to turn it into a federation while the royal family flees and the Hanoverian dynasty continues in America.

Did Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa wag the UK ?

No.

Why ? Because each was far less populated than the U.K. at the time.

If the U.K. had defeated the American revolutionaries, you can be sure it would have kept the 13 colonies divided to thwart any risk being overcome by a too big colony. Divide and rule has always been the basics of running an empire.
 
As always, whenever this question comes up, one must break it down into two parts: no aid whatsoever, or clandestine aid but not turning into full military assistance. And, a reminder that Spain played a huge role in both clandestine aid, and military action.

no aid at all paints a really grim picture on rebel chances. IMO, independence is a pipe dream.

continued clandestine aid leads to a debate. It is possible to argue either way. I'm on the side that says if France/Spain had not escalated their involvement, there is no independence, but it is quite possible a compromise peace could have been reached.
 
Did Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa wag the UK ?

No.

Why ? Because each was far less populated than the U.K. at the time.

If the U.K. had defeated the American revolutionaries, you can be sure it would have kept the 13 colonies divided to thwart any risk being overcome by a too big colony. Divide and rule has always been the basics of running an empire.

Even combined they are smaller than the population of the UK, which wouldn't be the case here. With continued British rule and no further revolutions, each either becomes independent Canada-style, or some sort of federalization leads to the UK being one of many voting members, even if it's the largest. In fact, Scotland and Ireland are likely to become constituent states in that second situation.
 
Did Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa wag the UK ?

No.

That ignores how vastly different demographic development was in all the different colonies. Besides, Canada became self-governing earlier than any of the others, largely in part because of its population. I don't think the idea is outside the realm of possibility.
 
That ignores how vastly different demographic development was in all the different colonies. Besides, Canada became self-governing earlier than any of the others, largely in part because of its population. I don't think the idea is outside the realm of possibility.

Why don’t you quote me fully ?

I precisely mentioned the demographics. And it is because the British were very aware of demographics dynamics that they would do anything possible to avoid being overcome by one single colony.

The British did not want equality with the colonials. OTL they (their ruling oligarchy of course but be sure the people would have supported the same position) would rather lose what became the US than face such a perspective.

And precisely, as far as Canada is concerned, it was only when, in 1867, it was acted that British North America would become a distinct polity that the different various British colonies in North America were united into a confederation.
 
Why don’t you quote me fully ?

Because I literally don't care enough. Unlike some, I don't come here looking to have pages of debates about everything. All I said was, "Hey, I think this would be neat," to which you replied, "WRONG, it's impossible," and to be honest it just isn't worth the effort of getting into it.

I hardly ever come into the pre/post-1900 forums anymore anyway.

Also, you didn't talk about demographic development. All you mentioned was that the respective dominions had lower populations. What I mean to imply was that America would likely have a much larger population than any of the others (and in a situation where Britain still rules the 13, it's possible they might never bother taking possession of Australia or New Zealand at all, as immigrants and settlers are going to want the much more accessible lands in America instead). The Americans are going to make more and more demands of parliament and the king as time goes on, and I don't doubt new rebellions will be on the horizon if the British don't play ball (then there's the slavery issue).

So the British are left with two choices - give concessions to the Americans, i.e. more power, or stifle them. The latter will likely lead to Revolution 2.0, the former to America getting too big for its britches, so to speak. Either way I think it's likely separation will be on the horizon. All I was saying in the first place is that it would be a neat twist on OTL history if rather than it being the Americans that rebelled against King and Country, it was the British themselves.
 
Top