I consider Washington the one man who the Revolution had to have to be won... at least according to a number of historians I have ready (from Trevor Dupuy to David Hackett Fisher). Yeah, he dies and eventually so does the army and with it hope for independence. As it was he was barely able to hold it together and only because his officers were devoted to him
Best chances of his death.. Battle of Brooklyn Heights (August 27, 1776), and Battle of Brandywine (September 11, 177). He dies at New York and Lee takes command and he will lose the army quickly (for one thing his officers hated him). Brandywine, maybe General Greene or Anthony Wayne takes command but more likely Gates gets the army post Saratoga, and his record at Camden is terrible... thus the Americans lose the war
So either one is a reasonable POD
Was he though? Washington was great from a morale and unity basis, but out side of that very lacking as a war leader. If the Continental Army ends up in the hands of competent general, then the Americans still have a chance. Especially because that general is likely to avoid the many military mistakes of Washington.
One butterfly is that the old regime in France probably gets at least a few more years. No American-inspired revolution in 1789. Some more financial stability, since the country wasn't involved in another long, costly war in North America. So, ultimately, no Napoleon.
Nonetheless to really avoid the French Revolution you need French PODs. People often blame the ARW for bringing down the Ancien Regime, but it was just one factor. The debt France had had been building up for a century (some of the debt dated back to Louis XIV) and was already massive without the ARW. So France's is still going to have financial trouble. Also a factor in provoking the FR was the famine and bread riots that occurred, and that has little to do with the ARW. Finally French idealists and revolutionary minded people already existed before the ARW even began. In brief France's revolution may be delayed without the ARW, but it is certainly not avoided without French PODs.
Why would there be a second rebellion, unless the Crown decides to treat the thirteen colonies like a much larger Ireland? More likely, there would be enough reform to keep most people quiet, and the theat of transportation to Australia for any hotheads. It all depends on how bad a defeat the rebels suffered. Scotland after 1745 never rebelled again
Scotland was at a huge demographic disadvantage, internally divided in a fashion that favored Britain, had earlier been disarmed, was bordering England, etc.
This number is a lie.
This is one of the myths that just won't die, because it's based on a quote from John Adams talking, years later, about the French Revolution.
i believe the current accepted numbers are 15 to 20 for the Loyalist and 40 to 50 for the Patriots.
Stupid question. How inevitable was the cotton gin being invented around 1793?
Did Eli Whitney make some sort of incredible breakthrough or was he simply working off ideas that had been around for a while?
Cotton gin like devices already existed, Eli's was just the most amazing version to be developed. But someone else could potentially do the same.
Without French involvement, it was virtually a no-win situation for the U.S., militarily speaking. The Brits were outclassing the Patriots on land, and control of the sea meant they could absolutely dictate engagement. Additionally they could increasingly send troops from overseas while the willing U.S. man pool was capped out and dwindling. Cornwallis was basically writing the blueprint for British Imperial wars, and only the arrival of the French navy turned that upside-down, not to mention somewhat levelled the battlefield on land. It's possible if it goes on long enough the British lose the war politically...it was never a popular war in Britain, but that's hard to predict.
So, the chances of a second war depend almost entirely on the cooperation of the French. But tbh I don't think it happens, because
A) the Crown's position on the taxes was a case specific need, ie they had bankrupted themselves fighting a war (that Washington started!) to defend the colonists that had significant material benefits for same but was a huge net loss for Britain.
B) without that exceptional situation, there was a lot of sympathy for the concept of colonial representation in Britain, and I think it would have been a negotiated middle-term peace. I think eventually it would become pretty independent, maybe like an accelerated Canada or maybe NA in general kind of splits off, but there are so many butterflies (does British focus remain on NA as opposed to looking east and south? Does it's naval power develop as strongly w/o French Revolution? Does Louisiana Purchase or anything close happen, and if not how do French and Spanish interests develop? Etc.) it's really calling a lot of coin flips.
I would expand that to without France, Spain, and the Netherlands' involvement. France provided troops and ships, Spain provided a multifront war, and the Netherlands' provided some serious bank. All of them were important to the American war effort. Without them the situation for the revolutionaries is indeed which bad, but it is not no-win necessarily just unlikely for them to win.
A) Washington (Jumonville Glen) and Frederick (Saxony), without the invasion of Saxony the French and Indian War would have not even been as big as the War of Jenkins' Ear.
B) It honestly depends on who ends up in control of parliament. But at the very least some concessions will be granted.