What if: America lost the American Revolution?

Hello! Welcome to the site.

You're in the Future History forum. Since your question pertains to a point of divergence (POD) in the 1770s, it would be better asked in the Before 1900 forum. There is a wealth of information on this subject there, given how often it comes up in alternate history.

Beyond that, though, there are lots of ways a failed American Revolution would affect history. Whole stories and timelines have been written on this site about it, detailing just about every angle. Feel free to have a gander here.
 
Lost revolution
Last seen waxing poetic on the inalienable rights of mankind
17.76$ REWARD
If found, call General George Washington at 703-780-2000
 
Last edited:
Welcome but two thing.

1. This is on wrong forum.
2. This question has handled on several threads. Just use search.
 
Ok, so the American Colonies failed their little 'revolution', so how can this affect the world as we know it?
Ignore all the thought police. True this question has been asked before but it's ok to ask again. The thread Nazis will try to shut you down just ignore them. You might want to add what you think would have happened. I think the idea of England winning would have sparked more thought within England of overthrowing the King much like France did.
 
I think the idea of England winning would have sparked more thought within England of overthrowing the King much like France did.

I think this is pretty unlikely: if the British have defeated the Rebels and half of Europe into the bargain, then clearly the government must be doing something right, so why would people be objecting to it?
 
Hello! Welcome to the site.

You're in the Future History forum. Since your question pertains to a point of divergence (POD) in the 1770s, it would be better asked in the Before 1900 forum. There is a wealth of information on this subject there, given how often it comes up in alternate history.

Beyond that, though, there are lots of ways a failed American Revolution would affect history. Whole stories and timelines have been written on this site about it, detailing just about every angle. Feel free to have a gander here.
Thanks; And I think that AlternateHistory should have a 'Change Forum' option
 
Ok, so the American Colonies failed their little 'revolution', so how can this affect the world as we know it?
They lose the British Isles during the Napoleonic wars but end up conquering the rest of the Americas and two centuries later begin a campaign of world conquest with giant robots. ALL HAIL BRITANNIA!

In all seriousness though, there going to have to come up with a better system for governing the empire as a whole. Otherwise they'll just be fighting another revolution a few decades down the line.
 
Well, this has been much talked about, as shown here. In the short term, the American revolutionaries will be suppressed, but in the longer term, some sort of self-governance will need to be instituted, and I think the British are smart enough to do that. Some sort of "Dominion of North America" is more than likely at this point. I'd argue that such measures would be immensely successful. Colonists are going to move west regardless, and I think Britain (or British North America) would conquer Louisiana and go further in such a scenario. In the short term, the occupation of British North America would probably delay the British Empire's conquest of, say Mysore, but in the long term, with the US's vast resources, the British Empire would probably be greater and more powerful, if less India-focused than OTL.

Moving further away from the US, you'd see a slightly-delayed French Revolution - French finances were doing so horrendously and the leadership was so incompetent that a lack of support of the American Revolution would be insufficient to stop it. Republicanism is birthed in the fire of revolution, and France has the military might to embark on conquest. If it establishes Spain as a client as OTL, it gives British North America an excuse to conquer Louisiana, but a lot of the French Revolution is up in the air, so to speak.
 
Well, this has been much talked about, as shown here. In the short term, the American revolutionaries will be suppressed, but in the longer term, some sort of self-governance will need to be instituted, and I think the British are smart enough to do that. Some sort of "Dominion of North America" is more than likely at this point. I'd argue that such measures would be immensely successful. Colonists are going to move west regardless, and I think Britain (or British North America) would conquer Louisiana and go further in such a scenario. In the short term, the occupation of British North America would probably delay the British Empire's conquest of, say Mysore, but in the long term, with the US's vast resources, the British Empire would probably be greater and more powerful, if less India-focused than OTL.

Moving further away from the US, you'd see a slightly-delayed French Revolution - French finances were doing so horrendously and the leadership was so incompetent that a lack of support of the American Revolution would be insufficient to stop it. Republicanism is birthed in the fire of revolution, and France has the military might to embark on conquest. If it establishes Spain as a client as OTL, it gives British North America an excuse to conquer Louisiana, but a lot of the French Revolution is up in the air, so to speak.

I rather think that, following the principle of divide and rule, there will not be one dominion of British North America but several dominions of British North America. Britain was then all about control, and it would then never willingly agree to shaping one single giant dominion so far away. Doing so would have made a nonsense fighting the ARW against the insurgents.

Either you don't fight and cut your loss : that is granting the representatives of the 13 colonies what they want before the breaking becomes irreversible. You may finally completely lose control but at least you will have avoided paying the price of fighting.

Or you fight and lose as happened OTL and then you cut your loss too.

Or you fight and win and then you will retain a higher degree of control than if you had lost and it is the insurgents/rebels who are going to pay a price. This price will be division. A wide autonomy but division and paying a certain amount of money (be it in taxes and/or trade privileges) to the imperial metropolis.
 
I've detailed this idea elsewhere, but I think a victory (or ideally avoiding the revolution altogether), would lead to the start of a Federal Parliamentary System. - I.e. Westminster is Parliament for the UK (and certainly the one with primacy), but then New York, or Philadelphia hosts one for the Eastern USA, with any colonies beyond the Appalachian Mountains being simple territories to later be formed into a new Parliament.

As to what it changes? Having the vast resources of the US under their control makes the British Empire significantly more dangerous on the world stage. Huge settler colony that is ethnically similar, and very close - suddenly the prospect of having to keep the continent divided is less important as there are the nearby resources of the US to draw on - so you could see Britains continental affairs lead to more acquisitions.

Alternatively, (or alongside that), you have different economic goals - India might be easier to take, and might be worth taking to prevent the French from taking it over, but it isn't needed as a massive cotton plantation (but I guess the later opium plantation isn't a 'bad' idea). Which means India might be approached differently - perhaps less Company Raj, and more Parliament of Orissa, Parliament of Mysore - basically local democracies of the landowning classes.

Fundamentally this forces any system to have to adapt - and chances are this Britain would lead to a loose federation with a common foreign policy and strategic plan - even to the point of using different currencies. As to joint decision making - how do you handle the desire to prevent the rise of a single India (an obvious strategic concern of the White Parliaments), with having the sheer number able to dominate political decision making. Chances are you'd seen England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland all suddenly getting Parliaments of their own to balance the numbers.

I think the end result wouldn't be a democracy, but something of a hybrid between an Oligarchy & Stratocracy ABOVE the Parliaments, made up of former officers and politicians, and economic interests.

Might it change once the cultures intermix and homogenise? Possibly - it might change with a larger white population emerging in an alt-Aus and alt-BNA (and I guess European possessions), so that the culture of those in power dominates - but it could well operate regardless of this - and simply operate in the interest of maintaining the union of the Parliaments. (i.e. push the frontiers, set up new parliament, push them again, establish another).

TL;DR - with an autonomous, but pacified America on side, the UK has a much bigger stick to wave around - but many of the same strategic goals.
 
I've detailed this idea elsewhere, but I think a victory (or ideally avoiding the revolution altogether), would lead to the start of a Federal Parliamentary System. - I.e. Westminster is Parliament for the UK (and certainly the one with primacy), but then New York, or Philadelphia hosts one for the Eastern USA, with any colonies beyond the Appalachian Mountains being simple territories to later be formed into a new Parliament.

As to what it changes? Having the vast resources of the US under their control makes the British Empire significantly more dangerous on the world stage. Huge settler colony that is ethnically similar, and very close - suddenly the prospect of having to keep the continent divided is less important as there are the nearby resources of the US to draw on - so you could see Britains continental affairs lead to more acquisitions.

Alternatively, (or alongside that), you have different economic goals - India might be easier to take, and might be worth taking to prevent the French from taking it over, but it isn't needed as a massive cotton plantation (but I guess the later opium plantation isn't a 'bad' idea). Which means India might be approached differently - perhaps less Company Raj, and more Parliament of Orissa, Parliament of Mysore - basically local democracies of the landowning classes.

Fundamentally this forces any system to have to adapt - and chances are this Britain would lead to a loose federation with a common foreign policy and strategic plan - even to the point of using different currencies. As to joint decision making - how do you handle the desire to prevent the rise of a single India (an obvious strategic concern of the White Parliaments), with having the sheer number able to dominate political decision making. Chances are you'd seen England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland all suddenly getting Parliaments of their own to balance the numbers.

I think the end result wouldn't be a democracy, but something of a hybrid between an Oligarchy & Stratocracy ABOVE the Parliaments, made up of former officers and politicians, and economic interests.

Might it change once the cultures intermix and homogenise? Possibly - it might change with a larger white population emerging in an alt-Aus and alt-BNA (and I guess European possessions), so that the culture of those in power dominates - but it could well operate regardless of this - and simply operate in the interest of maintaining the union of the Parliaments. (i.e. push the frontiers, set up new parliament, push them again, establish another).

TL;DR - with an autonomous, but pacified America on side, the UK has a much bigger stick to wave around - but many of the same strategic goals.

I don't think so. Both for technical and political reasons.

The technical reason is that before the age of jetliners, you just can't have one united democratic political entity made of 2 big parts (the 13 colonies can not be compared to Belize or british caribean islands) separated by 6,000 kilometers of ocean. The travel and communications time makes it impossible to maintain a link between representatives to the imperial parliament and their constituents.

The political reason is that Britain was then all but a democracy. It was a narrow oligarchy of aristocrats and high level financiers and merchants that did not want to lose control. They did not want to share power with colonial "upstarts". They wouls have prefered, as they later did OTL, retaining their control in Britain at the cost of loosening their control on the settler colonies by granting dominion status than losing control in Britain.
 
I don't think so. Both for technical and political reasons.

The technical reason is that before the age of jetliners, you just can't have one united democratic political entity made of 2 big parts (the 13 colonies can not be compared to Belize or british caribean islands) separated by 6,000 kilometers of ocean. The travel and communications time makes it impossible to maintain a link between representatives to the imperial parliament and their constituents.

The political reason is that Britain was then all but a democracy. It was a narrow oligarchy of aristocrats and high level financiers and merchants that did not want to lose control. They did not want to share power with colonial "upstarts". They wouls have prefered, as they later did OTL, retaining their control in Britain at the cost of loosening their control on the settler colonies by granting dominion status than losing control in Britain.

What isn't feasible about having a quasi - independent parliament across the Atlantic in New York or Philadelphia? It would basically be what happened in Canada only writ large. The big question is whether there would be one parliament or several. My guess would be one, at least initially simply because Britain isn't really presient enough to see America as an existential threat.

There's going to be problems thought, and they aren't necessarily the British fault. The colonies are going to want to push west as the population grows and this will lead to conflict with the other powers (Spain mostly), and Britain is going to be loathe to get dragged into a border conflict that America starts. The other issue is administration, America was an extremely tax averse place and a large chunk of their operating budget came from the sale of Western lands, but if that is slowed down or even just more organized they're going to need to raise taxes because Britain isn't going to give them a free ride.
 
I don't think so. Both for technical and political reasons.

The technical reason is that before the age of jetliners, you just can't have one united democratic political entity made of 2 big parts (the 13 colonies can not be compared to Belize or british caribean islands) separated by 6,000 kilometers of ocean. The travel and communications time makes it impossible to maintain a link between representatives to the imperial parliament and their constituents.

You seem to have completely missed the Federal part? I never stated a common parliament for the top decision making (It is why I mentioned the stratocracy/oligarchy thing near the end). You have local democracy, under first a monarch that ties them together (perhaps with a small privy council), that later evolves into an almost Deep-State like structure of generals, industrial interests, nobles, and otherwise incredibly wealthy, with little to no pretence of democracy in there.

The political reason is that Britain was then all but a democracy. It was a narrow oligarchy of aristocrats and high level financiers and merchants that did not want to lose control. They did not want to share power with colonial "upstarts". They wouls have prefered, as they later did OTL, retaining their control in Britain at the cost of loosening their control on the settler colonies by granting dominion status than losing control in Britain.

They aren't losing control - this same group of people are the ones who I imagine as part of the statocracy/oligarchy ABOVE the parliaments - and would certainly be influential or directly part of the parliaments themselves anyway. Nothing states they can't have operations both sides of the atlantic to manipulate both parliaments, plus, there is a very good argument that they'd rather retain control over the resources of America in a way that ensures they can make a fortune, and not suffer the costs of another revolutionary war - in combination with maintain some level of control.
 
seems to me once the idea of independence is raised, any time a colonist gets a hangnail, or stubs his toe, it's going to be the fault of the mother country. and vice versa.


In the meanwhile, the US is going to get into adventures, and expect help from Mother Britain, or Britain will get into adventures and expect help from the adult children across the pond. Certainly, it is possible that the two can get along, but methinks it's ten chances to get it wrong, one chance to get it right. There's a reason most colonies from around the world had to strike out for independence usually at gunpoint. The notion that the US could get representation satisfactory to both sides is possible, but not particularly likely.
 
I don't think so. Both for technical and political reasons.

The technical reason is that before the age of jetliners, you just can't have one united democratic political entity made of 2 big parts (the 13 colonies can not be compared to Belize or british caribean islands) separated by 6,000 kilometers of ocean. The travel and communications time makes it impossible to maintain a link between representatives to the imperial parliament and their constituents.

It took about two and a half months to travel from New York to London. That is way shorter than California to DC in the mid-19th Century.
 
There would be a lot of pickup trucks with these:

images
 
Top