What if America lost the War of Independence?

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?

there were already preliminary versions but his was far more efficient

how inevitable is a good question, but it seems likely someone would have come up with what he did
 
If the war had ended in a British victory in 1777 or later, I believe another rebellion would occur again once the American Colonists had replenished their supplies of arms, etc. and found new leaders of Washington's, Adams's, Jefferson's, etc. caliber - by that time any reconciliation under the terms of the old status quo would no longer be possible.
 
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. Howe/Cornwallis were 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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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. .
He made his mistakes, but Trenton, Yorktown and White Plains made up for them

and no one else probably could have kept the hard core of the army together in pretty awful circumstances that they faced

He is also rated very highly as a spymaster (Keagan really liked him in his book "Intelligence in War") and Washington is who insisted and made happen the inoculation of the Army for smallpox, at a time when simply interacting with the British might have killed a lot of it (there was a smallpox epidemic the British accidently brought in, and Americans were highly vulnerable to it for reasons of population size and insufficient pool of immune people).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1775–82_North_American_smallpox_epidemic

there is a good book on this I read about a decade ago, but I can't recall the title, but holy crap it was a bad one and it spread literally across the entire continent

(edit: this might be the book..like I said its been a long time)
https://www.amazon.com/Pox-Americana-Smallpox-Epidemic-1775-82/dp/080907821X

and this was years after Amherst gave the Indians infected blankets
 
He made his mistakes, but Trenton, Yorktown and White Plains made up for them

and no one else probably could have kept the hard core of the army together in pretty awful circumstances that they faced

He is also rated very highly as a spymaster (Keagan really liked him in his book "Intelligence in War") and Washington is who insisted and made happen the inoculation of the Army for smallpox, at a time when simply interacting with the British might have killed a lot of it (there was a smallpox epidemic the British accidently brought in, and Americans were highly vulnerable to it for reasons of population size and insufficient pool of immune people).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1775–82_North_American_smallpox_epidemic

there is a good book on this I read about a decade ago, but I can't recall the title, but holy crap it was a bad one and it spread literally across the entire continent

(edit: this might be the book..like I said its been a long time)
https://www.amazon.com/Pox-Americana-Smallpox-Epidemic-1775-82/dp/080907821X

and this was years after Amherst gave the Indians infected blankets

He was an exceptional leader, and his Cincinnatus moment later on is one of the great testaments to a man's character in history, but honestly a mediocre to terrible general. His mistakes were huge, and on balance his 'make-ups' were pretty pedestrian. Yorktown, for example...that was much more the three Frenchmen than Washington...who mostly painted by numbers and prosecuted a siege with a greater than 2:1 advantage, land and sea encirclement against a sick enemy in a hastily prepared position that was cut off from evacuation by weather.

He didn't it fuck up (though he tried, repeatedly pushing for a symbolic attack on NY instead, against everyone's advice) which for him ranks it up there I agree, but nothing noteworthy. I can get behind the idea that he was essential in terms of leadership, discipline, perseverance, all that...I compare him to Alfred...but as an actual commander he's incredibly overrated. Marion and the French guys were the notable commanders on the American side IMO.
 
Last edited:
He made his mistakes, but Trenton, Yorktown and White Plains made up for them

and no one else probably could have kept the hard core of the army together in pretty awful circumstances that they faced

He is also rated very highly as a spymaster (Keagan really liked him in his book "Intelligence in War") and Washington is who insisted and made happen the inoculation of the Army for smallpox, at a time when simply interacting with the British might have killed a lot of it (there was a smallpox epidemic the British accidently brought in, and Americans were highly vulnerable to it for reasons of population size and insufficient pool of immune people).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1775–82_North_American_smallpox_epidemic

there is a good book on this I read about a decade ago, but I can't recall the title, but holy crap it was a bad one and it spread literally across the entire continent

(edit: this might be the book..like I said its been a long time)
https://www.amazon.com/Pox-Americana-Smallpox-Epidemic-1775-82/dp/080907821X

and this was years after Amherst gave the Indians infected blankets

Trenton was a nice surprise attack and the later Princeton was also a good victory. But Yorktown was not his victory at all. Yorktown started when Greene and Lafayette had the brilliance to cut off Cornwallis and then the skill to keep him there even though he severely outnumbered them. Then Rochambeau had to convince Washington to march south and reinforce Lafayette and Greene to defeat Cornwallis. Washington at first was reluctant would have rather assaulted the absolute fortress that was New York. And White Plains was just a series of military mistakes on both sides.

And the awful circumstances were often times created by Washington's military mistakes. Meanwhile other lesser commmanders were more competent had still had some of the morale appeal, just less morale appeal than Washington.

Washington indeed was talented at intrigue and smart enough to recognize the potential destruction of disease.

I'm not saying that Washington overall was bad for the Continental Army. In fact when considering the plausible choices for the early Continental Army he is without doubt the best. Because though he is deficient in military tact, he does make up for a lot of it with his ability to rally the army, keep enlistments, produce intelligence, and very very importantly listen to his subordinates at times. In fact because he was willing to listen to his subordinates, Washington was basically the best the Continental Army could hope for. Gates lacked in competence and charisma, Arnold was too rash and too young, Wayne was too rash, etc. What I am saying is that if Washington dies, the America is not finished. Greene would be the ideal replacement.
 
Trenton was a nice surprise attack and the later Princeton was also a good victory. But Yorktown was not his victory at all. Yorktown started when Greene and Lafayette had the brilliance to cut off Cornwallis and then the skill to keep him there even though he severely outnumbered them. Then Rochambeau had to convince Washington to march south and reinforce Lafayette and Greene to defeat Cornwallis. Washington at first was reluctant would have rather assaulted the absolute fortress that was New York. And White Plains was just a series of military mistakes on both sides.

And the awful circumstances were often times created by Washington's military mistakes. Meanwhile other lesser commmanders were more competent had still had some of the morale appeal, just less morale appeal than Washington.

Washington indeed was talented at intrigue and smart enough to recognize the potential destruction of disease.

I'm not saying that Washington overall was bad for the Continental Army. In fact when considering the plausible choices for the early Continental Army he is without doubt the best. Because though he is deficient in military tact, he does make up for a lot of it with his ability to rally the army, keep enlistments, produce intelligence, and very very importantly listen to his subordinates at times. In fact because he was willing to listen to his subordinates, Washington was basically the best the Continental Army could hope for. Gates lacked in competence and charisma, Arnold was too rash and too young, Wayne was too rash, etc. What I am saying is that if Washington dies, the America is not finished. Greene would be the ideal replacement.

Greene would be my choice too, with Anthony Wayne as next choice

Arnold before he sank into the funk that turned into treason was also gifted
 
Trenton was a nice surprise attack and the later Princeton was also a good victory. But Yorktown was not his victory at all. Yorktown started when Greene and Lafayette had the brilliance to cut off Cornwallis and then the skill to keep him there even though he severely outnumbered them. Then Rochambeau had to convince Washington to march south and reinforce Lafayette and Greene to defeat Cornwallis. Washington at first was reluctant would have rather assaulted the absolute fortress that was New York. And White Plains was just a series of military mistakes on both sides.

And the awful circumstances were often times created by Washington's military mistakes. Meanwhile other lesser commmanders were more competent had still had some of the morale appeal, just less morale appeal than Washington.

Washington indeed was talented at intrigue and smart enough to recognize the potential destruction of disease.

I'm not saying that Washington overall was bad for the Continental Army. In fact when considering the plausible choices for the early Continental Army he is without doubt the best. Because though he is deficient in military tact, he does make up for a lot of it with his ability to rally the army, keep enlistments, produce intelligence, and very very importantly listen to his subordinates at times. In fact because he was willing to listen to his subordinates, Washington was basically the best the Continental Army could hope for. Gates lacked in competence and charisma, Arnold was too rash and too young, Wayne was too rash, etc. What I am saying is that if Washington dies, the America is not finished. Greene would be the ideal replacement.

Aye, I always forget about Greene, don't know why.
 
Greene would be my choice too, with Anthony Wayne as next choice

Arnold before he sank into the funk that turned into treason was also gifted

Arnold was exceptional from everything I've read. And at least as much wronged as wronging...really got the shaft.
 
Arnold was exceptional from everything I've read. And at least as much wronged as wronging...really got the shaft.
yeah, i think Arnold is honestly undeserving of alot of the flak he got. yes, he betrayed the Revolution, but only after being shafted many, many times in a row, others getting the credit for his accomplishments and being passed over for some well-deserved promotions after everything he did, and iirc Washington agreed with him that he was being treated unfairly by the Congress--he wasn't a cackling villain out to undermine the Revolution from the get-go like fiction usually portrays him.

now that i think about it, he kinda got on a personal level what the Colonists did on a national scale.
 
Arnold was exceptional from everything I've read. And at least as much wronged as wronging...really got the shaft.

Says something that the war may well have been lost without America's most famous traitor.

Oh, and I recall his wife was a Loyalist, on top of the professional indignities.
 
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.



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.



Scotland was at a huge demographic disadvantage, internally divided in a fashion that favored Britain, had earlier been disarmed, was bordering England, etc.



i believe the current accepted numbers are 15 to 20 for the Loyalist and 40 to 50 for the Patriots.



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.



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.

Yeah, I'd agree with your inclusion of Spain/Netherlands. I slightly disagree on 'unlikely' simply because, absent the French fleet, the British would have to commit extreme folly to lose, like consolidating most of their forces and marching them into a trap out of evacuation range. But nothing suggests they were contemplating such a suicidal action. So long as they kept their army fluid via the sea, they dictated the war...and they knew it. They could and did suffer minor losses, but it needed something like Yorktown to actually lose the war. So I think it's pretty close to unwind able, militarily speaking.
 
Top