Results of a prolonged American Revolution

I'm working on a timeline in which the American Revolution continues untill 1789. What prolongs the Revolution is a U.S. defeat at Saratoga in 1777. The American losses discourages France from supporting the Revolution. So France does not get involved, thereby not having going bankrupt funding the revolution. When the Americans loose at Saratoga, it allows the British to take Albany, and eventually take control of the Hudson river, cutting New England off from the rest of the colonies by early 1778.

I personally think the Americans can win the revolution without the help of France, Spain, etc. However, I do think that without them it would take longer, and cost more lives and money. I guess that if the Americans continue to fight even after a loss at Saratoga, 1789 would be a pretty probable time for it to end.

By 1789, the British would be nearly bankrupt, and Taxes would be through the roof. The British would have run out of American Loyalists to fill the ranks and would start more conscripting from the homeland. This would begin to anger people in England, undoubtedly. What are the chances for some kind of British Revolution occuring in the 1790s?

What might happen in a France that didn't support the American Revolution?
progress.gif
 
Last edited:
I don't think Britain would last till 1789. By 1781 there were already calls to disengage.
You also need some American victories in 1779~80 to keep the Americans in the Fight.
 
If France doesn't get involved due to a different result at Saratoga the ARW probably fails and a well-calculated British peace proposal, much like the one actually made shortly after news of Saratoga arrives, ends the rebellion.

For Want Of A Nail by Robert Sobel follows...:D
 
You are disregarding the american financial situation which was dire. We needed Saratoga because it brought in French money and influence. It also gave other European powers cover to secretly support us.
 

Thande

Donor
If France, Spain and the Netherlands didn't intervene, we could have won, in the same way that on paper the USA could have won in Vietnam. But before the Bourbons entered the war public opinion was so pro-American and against the government that I think the whole thing would have come crashing down sooner or later: a few more reports of Hessians burning cities, pamphlets on the streets, etc.

I think the eventual result would be a quiet revolution in Parliament, George III finding himself in a position similar to Charles I circa 1640, and an arrangement being met with the Americans. Probably something like the colonies are more or less acknowledged to be independent but have to keep trade ties by treaty with Britain and at least acknowledge the crown on paper without having to do anything about it.

Would probably lead to a looser confederation or maybe no union of colonies at all: there would be a sense that if Britain has relented and France and Spain are considered distant and unthreatening (not having been anywhere near the area since the 1750s) there would be little impetus for the colonies to hold together against external forces.
 

Thande

Donor
Incidentally here's a relevant Gillray cartoon from 1783.

Note that as far as the KGB was concerned in 1783 they had lost a war to
the Netherlands, Spain and France (left to right) and America was lost as
a consequence of that - seen here being stolen by the devil. Although a figure
representing the colonists sometimes appeared in earlier cartoons, you see here
that by 1783 the colonial rebels weren't considered to be a major factor in the course of the war.

The_Times%2C_Anno_1783_by_James_Gillray_%282%29.jpg
 
I've noticed those three same cariactures of Spain, France, and the Netherlands a LOT in ARW political cartoons. Interesting.

I also find it really funky that that's the British viewpoint. I didn't ever consider that...
 
I also find it really funky that that's the British viewpoint. I didn't ever consider that...

Try reading Barbara Tuchman's March of Folly. One of the major sections of the book deals with the American revolution. Essentially the British government acted like a total pack of morons and did everything they possibly could to antagonise the colonists and give them excuses for seeking independence. They managed to disgust most of the British public and especially people who knew anything about the colonies. There was a lot of sympathy for American independence and as Thande says the French et al getting into the situation pretty much changed public perception of it as a war with the European powers in which the American revolutionaries were incidental.
 

Thande

Donor
There was a lot of sympathy for American independence and as Thande says the French et al getting into the situation pretty much changed public perception of it as a war with the European powers in which the American revolutionaries were incidental.

Which is of course not to impugn the service of the Continental Army - they did very well to last as long as they did and if they hadn't been as successful as they were in the 1770s, the Bourbon Powers would never have entered the war.

Basically somewhat similar to Britain in WW2 perhaps; at the end, the US and USSR were more important in the defeat of the Nazis, but if we hadn't held on in 1940 and 1941 then the USA would never have come into the war and there never would have been lend-lease to the USSR and the Nazis might have won.
 
I think the eventual result would be a quiet revolution in Parliament, George III finding himself in a position similar to Charles I circa 1640, and an arrangement being met with the Americans. Probably something like the colonies are more or less acknowledged to be independent but have to keep trade ties by treaty with Britain and at least acknowledge the crown on paper without having to do anything about it.
I'm not entirely sure why George would face a situation like 1640. Ultimately Parliament at this stage, while officially bending to his will and merely ruling for him, would take responsibility for the situation. Other than antagonising for or against war, the King had no input in the war whatsoever. If the war dragged on and on it would be seen as a result of incompetant mishandling, unless Parliament specifically tried to extricate themselves and George vetoed a peace - but if that happened, I would put my money on that at the stage at which Parliament was ready to go behind the King's back, the war would already be lost. George vetoing at that stage would result in a public outburst but then within months the end of the war anyway, and the matter would be forgotten. Either way, I see Parliament as being the one who take responsibility and face the public backlash every time. It would essentially require the King dissolving Parliament to take over control of foreign policy himself to ever engineer a situation like 1640, and I just don't see George doing that.
 

Thande

Donor
I'm not entirely sure why George would face a situation like 1640. Ultimately Parliament at this stage, while officially bending to his will and merely ruling for him, would take responsibility for the situation. Other than antagonising for or against war, the King had no input in the war whatsoever. If the war dragged on and on it would be seen as a result of incompetant mishandling, unless Parliament specifically tried to extricate themselves and George vetoed a peace - but if that happened, I would put my money on that at the stage at which Parliament was ready to go behind the King's back, the war would already be lost. George vetoing at that stage would result in a public outburst but then within months the end of the war anyway, and the matter would be forgotten. Either way, I see Parliament as being the one who take responsibility and face the public backlash every time. It would essentially require the King dissolving Parliament to take over control of foreign policy himself to ever engineer a situation like 1640, and I just don't see George doing that.

Well George III was the most activist king Britain had had since the Stuarts and he did have a considerable hand in the leadup to the ARW, mainly in his bad choice of Prime Ministers. I think he would shoulder a big part of the blame besides people like Lord North, I mean radical-leaning papers like the North Briton had been directly criticising him for years.
 
Well George III was the most activist king Britain had had since the Stuarts and he did have a considerable hand in the leadup to the ARW, mainly in his bad choice of Prime Ministers. I think he would shoulder a big part of the blame besides people like Lord North, I mean radical-leaning papers like the North Briton had been directly criticising him for years.

True enough, but there's a long way between that and 1640. I'd say being blamed for the war still comes out as closer to Parliament facing the consequences than another 1640 happening.
 
Well George III was the most activist king Britain had had since the Stuarts and he did have a considerable hand in the leadup to the ARW, mainly in his bad choice of Prime Ministers. I think he would shoulder a big part of the blame besides people like Lord North, I mean radical-leaning papers like the North Briton had been directly criticising him for years.

And who was listening?

Sure, the Whigs would have given the Americans a great deal. But it took until 1781 for Britain to consider American independence to be a fait accompli.
 
If France, Spain and the Netherlands didn't intervene, we could have won, in the same way that on paper the USA could have won in Vietnam. But before the Bourbons entered the war public opinion was so pro-American and against the government that I think the whole thing would have come crashing down sooner or later: a few more reports of Hessians burning cities, pamphlets on the streets, etc.

I think the eventual result would be a quiet revolution in Parliament, George III finding himself in a position similar to Charles I circa 1640, and an arrangement being met with the Americans. Probably something like the colonies are more or less acknowledged to be independent but have to keep trade ties by treaty with Britain and at least acknowledge the crown on paper without having to do anything about it.

Would probably lead to a looser confederation or maybe no union of colonies at all: there would be a sense that if Britain has relented and France and Spain are considered distant and unthreatening (not having been anywhere near the area since the 1750s) there would be little impetus for the colonies to hold together against external forces.

This sounds like a cool TL idea:cool:.
 
Top