Was American indepence inevitable?

I tthink this is overly deterministic; without the social change brought on by the Revolution, it's not clear to me that Jacksonian Democracy would take off.

True. Still, even in Europe liberalism/populism was beginning to take hold at this time, even if most movements didn't succeed. Surely one can claim most of the west, and Europe particuraly-which America will be more attached to via being still friendly with Britain-will at least begin attempts of populism at this time, successful or no.
 
Breaking away from the British crown was something I don't think the colonies wanted really. More like their own rule,sort of like a Commonwealth. But with Britain saying no,war was unavoidable..
 
John Adams, writing at the time of the French and Indian war was intensely proud of being an Englishman. Nevertheless, he forsaw a time (he thought within 100 years) when governance of the British Empire would inevitably shift to America. He believed that the American population would eventually be far greater than the home islands, and as a result the Empire would be ruled from North America rather than London. Perhaps a naive position, but of course Adams was later a key player in the conflicts between Great Britain and America and a very bright man.

As for POD's preventing US independence Washington's death or capture while attempting the crossing of the Deleware would have left Congress without an organized force in the north. A British offensive in the spring of the following year neutralizes Pennsylvania and effectively isolates New England
 
Down with ignorant americans!

The inevitability of American independence.


Take back my ignorance!

The day has come in our society where an individual cannot make a harmless joke without some dimwit accusing him of a lack of intelligence!

Ill sink your island limey!
 
Take back my ignorance!

The day has come in our society where an individual cannot make a harmless joke without some dimwit accusing him of a lack of intelligence!

Ill sink your island limey!

Come and gone is the day when people can spout off about other nations in such a thoughtless and careless way!

Your ignorance towards the way you treat your fellow man remains!
 
I think the industrialization of North America would develop slower than in OTL. Colonies were the source of raw materials for the home country, and the markets for the home country's manufacturers. I don't think historic Canada would have industrialized as fast if she bordered friendly fellow colonies.

What happens to French/Spanish Louisana in this scenario? Do the American colonies go in together to conquer that part of North America? If taken over by the British Empire, does that territory become a separate colony or colonies?

I wonder if not having an independent USA means more wars are waged in North America than historically? I'm assuming that at some point a conflict similar in scope to the ACW still breaks out. In addition to that, the European wars of the 19th century spread to North America.
 
Come and gone is the day when people can spout off about other nations in such a thoughtless and careless way!

Your ignorance towards the way you treat your fellow man remains!

I am bringing that way back! Just as Justin brought sexy back even though no one really knew it was gone in the first place because there were still haught womenz around.

If the way I treat my fellow man is ignorance, those neo-nazis over in Idaho must be cavemen!
 
Reading about the period again, and wow, it's harder to get America to not have a revolution than it looks.

It's very striking to me that by early 1776, almost all of the colonists had authorized their delegates to vote for independence, while men like Adams were content to play the waiting game. In essence, they were willing to go along with the moderates like Dickinson at the Contingetal Congress who hoped for reconciliation, but were fully aware that Parliament would blow off every effort to do so, as indeed it did.
 
To play devil's advocate to Faeelin and Divlish:

1) As a friendly part of the British Empire, Divlish, wouldn't American manufacturers eventually develop anyway? After all, Britain will need all she can get to be manufacturing and developing the raw materials of the empire, and there's a large, ready-to-do-it population in America. America then might actually industrialize slightly earlier than in OTL, providing goods not just to supplement Britain for the European continent, but other areas more nearby like the West Indies and Latin America.

2) Faeelin-I'm somewhat the opposite lately, but that's because I feel the flip side is that every point that angered the Americans could probably just as easy just *not* gather enough support, or maybe pass in a somewhat less-harsh manner, or the like...

BTW, I'm willing to be corrected on either issue, I'm just trying to figure out as many potential butterflies as possible here. :)
 
2) Faeelin-I'm somewhat the opposite lately, but that's because I feel the flip side is that every point that angered the Americans could probably just as easy just *not* gather enough support, or maybe pass in a somewhat less-harsh manner, or the like...

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. It reads to me like you're saying "It's possible the colonists wouldn't have all been bloody angry over taxation," which is possible, I guess. But given that the anger was found across the length and breadth of the colonies, it seems hard to abort.
 
*For now*, I too support the 'America develops like Canada' theory....

I subscribe to a Loyalist America still very roughly paralleling our timeline, with the Anglo-Americans moving west, fighting over sectional differences, and let's face it, becoming a great power of some sort on the world stage probably occuring anyways due to them already happening or having the building blocks for it to happen ready by the time of the Revolution.


No one has remembered the Proclamation Line of 1763, one of the stated reasons for colonists to rebel. If they lose, that line gets enforced, though perhaps not rigorously.

And many Americans forget how Canada's history is so different from USA's.

Far fewer wars with Natives.

More treaties with at least some effort for the crown the keep their word compared to the US virtually always breaking treaties.

Efforts to create economic dependence instead followed by cultural assimilation. But still a higher percent of your nation being First Nation that the US. I think it's something like 8% compared to the USA's 1%.

And overall, a democratic tradition less rightwing than the USA. (Eg universal healthcare.)

But probably not a world power. I haven't seen any reason the USA would become so if it did follow the Canadian model. Manifest Destiny is much less likely if you have the Queen and her ministers telling you NO! until, what, the mid 20th century?
 
Last edited:
John Adams, writing at the time of the French and Indian war was intensely proud of being an Englishman. Nevertheless, he forsaw a time (he thought within 100 years) when governance of the British Empire would inevitably shift to America. He believed that the American population would eventually be far greater than the home islands, and as a result the Empire would be ruled from North America rather than London. Perhaps a naive position, but of course Adams was later a key player in the conflicts between Great Britain and America and a very bright man.

I don't think this position was that naive. Just look at what happened in Brazil. If history progresses similarly ITTL Brazil would soon be declared a Kingdom and the 13 Colonies could try to achieve something similar with Britain.
Later infante Pedro led the Brazilian independence when he was called back to Lisbon and the Brazilians crowned him as Emperor. Similarly Mexico's original intention when rebelling against Spain was to transfer Ferdinand VII from Madrid to Mexico City.
The idea of transferring the monarchies to the Americas was certainly a popular one, and for those who enjoy an American Empire TL this is certainly a much more plausible scenario than having George Washington crowned. Also the colonies do not need the precedent of Mexico or Brazil to do the same they could very well be the ones that get to set the example (as they did in OTL) or the ones that follow it.

In the case of the colonies staying part of the British Empire, I can also see an attempt by the Southern colonies to declare independence once slavery is abolished ala Civil War (which would be sooner than in OTL).

One serious butterfly from such a POD that we must take into consideration would be how British North America would expand. A major cause of the revolution besides taxes was that the British were not allowing the colonists to expand west of the Appalachians. Eventually they would have to allow it, and I can also see the taking the Louisiana Territory at some point but having Canada at their disposal will they see the necessity of taking the Mexican territories?
 
. A major cause of the revolution besides taxes was that the British were not allowing the colonists to expand west of the Appalachians.

I actually have done some checking on this, and it isn't true; Britain expanded allowed settlement in the Kentucky region and further south, as well as along the Gulf of Mexico coast.
 
-Establishing an admiralty court in Nova Scotia for trials for smugglers, subverting local trials by jury? Check.

One could argue that, with some exceptions, trial by jury didn't exist in Halifax. It certainly didn't exist in the Canadas, for example, due to the Royal Custom of Paris, to an extent, still being the law of the land - and the Royal Custom did not have a concept of trial by jury.

-Increasing garrisons within the colonies? Check.

For the Gibraltars of the North (Halifax and Québec City), mainly, to prevent the French from taking over newly-formed British territory. :D

You can argue this was necessary, but Britain was clearly usurping control from the colonial assemblies.

And for those colonies that didn't have assemblies to begin with?
 
3) Poor Quebec. Probably anglicized by this time with the traditional anti-Catholic feeling that existed in OTL America and hordes more settlers from the more southern states of New York and New England, not to mention if an ARW is averted, you've got 50,000 casualties in a more crowded New England needing empty land that's conveniently immediantly up north. :eek::rolleyes:

Maybe Upper Canada, the Eastern Townships and the big towns, like Montréal, but not a good deal of the Canadas. The Canadas would still remain largely Francophone, though with a different culture than the French in France.
 
Only a minority, though. The majority wouldn't care either way.

I'm not so sure; it's strikign to me, how even in colonies with relatively large loyalist poulations, independence was supported by their assemblies.

And once the British used the propaganda and military tactics of an invader, well, ouch.

One could argue that, with some exceptions, trial by jury didn't exist in Halifax. It certainly didn't exist in the Canadas, for example, due to the Royal Custom of Paris, to an extent, still being the law of the land - and the Royal Custom did not have a concept of trial by jury.

I freely admit there was no trial by jury in those colonies that were not part of the 13 colonies. So?
 
Top