The Revolution of 1860

Premise: The American Revolution fails and does not happen until the 1860s. A disasterous war in Mexico against the French Occupation causes hundreds of thousands of casualties for the American colonists forced to fight for the British Empire. This sows the seeds of a new Revolution after the false starts of the Rebellion of 1812 and the Texas Revolt of 1836. Can Abraham Lincoln get the Northern and Southern states to cooperate in a revolt against British rule? What would a new coalition of "Founding Fathers" under Lincoln have looked like?
 

JohnJacques

Banned
Oh, where to start.

While it is an interesting idea to delay the American Revolution, it won't end up under Lincoln or anyone else we knew in our timeline. There is such a thing as butterflies and then there was the fact that the Revolutionary touched most individual's lives at the time.

Then there is the matter of confluence. Revolution of 1812? What? Texas Rebellion in 1836? These won't simply happen like that.
 
I just thought it might be possible that the memory of the Revolution might have inspired later ones...if not during the Napoleonic Wars (during which Americans would also participate, and American soldiers most likely be treated as second class citizens) then perhaps at some point during the 19th century (a Western rebellion, perhaps?)

The Texans were a fiercely independent bunch to begin with; it's possible they might still have tried to gain their independence in the 1830s.

Of course its equally possible that America wouldn't gain its independence until much later, perhaps after World War Two the way many other British colonies did.
 

JohnJacques

Banned
I just thought it might be possible that the memory of the Revolution might have inspired later ones...if not during the Napoleonic Wars (during which Americans would also participate, and American soldiers most likely be treated as second class citizens) then perhaps at some point during the 19th century (a Western rebellion, perhaps?)

The Texans were a fiercely independent bunch to begin with; it's possible they might still have tried to gain their independence in the 1830s.

Of course its equally possible that America wouldn't gain its independence until much later, perhaps after World War Two the way many other British colonies did.

The Texans weren't an independent people considering that they didn't exist until after the Revolution succeeded.

I think once you open up the Appalachians, you've got only to worry about New England in terms of rebellion.

And finally, don't talk about WW2 with a point of departure in the 1770s.
 
If the ARW are a failure then British N America is a unified structure from Canada to Florida. BUT West of the Mississippi is SPAIN.

Now, it may well be likely that Britain fights a war with Spain, that British American settlers ESCAPING British rule cross the river and settle in Spanish Louisiana, but it seems unlikely they would go as far West as Texas when there's no need

This creates completely different dynamics as you have the most independent-minded Americans as SPANISH citizens

Now, who knows what happens in Europe if France is defeated in the ARW ? Maybe an earlier easier Revolution and less wars ?

Britain and Spain may fight for the Great Plains in the 1810s ? If Britain wins, it inherits a problem or two
-1- a Spanish population
-2- American settlers who crossed the Mississippi to escape the British

Ironically, creole and cajun French would probably be an asset to the British

1820s Canada in some form or other is likely to be spun off on its own

1830s maybe indeed you do get a rising, but in Louisiana of those Americans who had gone West and now for years have felt the growing hand of British dominance reclaim them

This could be crushed

Spain may lose its American possessions as a result of losing Louisiana to Britain, so a large Mexican state possessing Tejas, New Mexico and California is Britain's main rival to the West

A British-Mexican War could be on the cards, especially if refugees from a failed 1830 rising in British Louisiana flee into Tejas

Thus, by 1860 you could have most of the US as we know it under British rule but by a path as above, and a strong sentiment among some parts of the population agitating for independence

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
(during which Americans would also participate, and American soldiers most likely be treated as second class citizens
Assuming it somehow happens: No, they wouldn't.
Especially once we get to wars in the mid 19th century.
IOTL troops from the dominions were treat normally and with no American revolution things are going to be very different.
 
For the sake of AH, i'm going to go with Grey Wolf's scenario.

Abraham Lincoln would not be leading the (let's call it) 4th Continental Congress. It would most likely be led by William H. Seward and Stephen A. Douglas.

Lincoln would most likely attend the convention, but he'd probably be more of a Madison figure: a rising star, but not experienced enough yet to be given control.

Other attenders of the convention would most likely be James Buchanan (who would be championing compromise with Britain against war), John Breckenridge (who would be representing his constituents in the south), Edwin Stanton (championing war), Andrew Johnson (assuming he doesn't stick with tailoring ITTL), Benjamin Judah (who might bring the concept of how minorities would play in the upcoming election), Jefferson Davis, Salmon Chase, Howell Cobb, Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, and probably a few other smaller figures, but those are probably the major ones.

Of course, assuming their lives go relatively similar in British North America as they did in the United States.

This Continental Convention would probably be seeking a military leader as well: Robert E. Lee might be at the top of that list in the same way that Washington was in 1776. George McClellan, Albert Sidney Johson and Thomas Jackson could be on that list as well, but i think Lee would end up commanding it by the end of the war. Him and Grant (i think given virtually any military circumstances that doesn't give the British overwhelming technology or military strength) would most likely end up as the generals that the war ends up with as their big heroes.

The big issue i think would have to be slavery. It makes or breaks BNA's struggle for freedom. Did William Wilburforce succesfully establish manumission in 1833 and the southern colonies of BNA accepted it? Then this problem would be nonexistent. Or did the colonies manage to escape Wilberforce's reign? At which point, this is a serious issue.
 
Top