What if the USA lost the American Revolution?
- Thread starter AlternateHistorian1993
- Start date
I think that the U.S. in modern day would wind up being similar to Canada, in the way that while they would still eventually achieve independence from the British parliament at some point in the future, they would still recognize the British monarchy, though only as a title and not as a person with actual power - the U.S. would also probably have a prime minister in charge of them.
Last edited:
Quite significantly, even ignoring just butterflies like "no Queen Victor, a King Victor or something else." and where they go.
I would honestly not expect there to be a "the U.S." as such - one country even reaching the Mississippi is not necessarily a given (as far as the territory of the OTL US), let alone spanning from the Atlantic to the Pacific. At the very least the western side of North America is probably changed a great deal (as far as New Spain's future, or that of the Louisiana territory).
20th century history is probably changed on a global level. I'm not sure where I'd even start naming differences.
I would honestly not expect there to be a "the U.S." as such - one country even reaching the Mississippi is not necessarily a given (as far as the territory of the OTL US), let alone spanning from the Atlantic to the Pacific. At the very least the western side of North America is probably changed a great deal (as far as New Spain's future, or that of the Louisiana territory).
20th century history is probably changed on a global level. I'm not sure where I'd even start naming differences.
Last edited:
Yeah, if the British remain the dominant power in North America there is probably going to be no United States, likely there will be several countries carved out of the North American territory that Britain controls. To start charting out a post-rebellion world there are key questions that should be answered.
Punishment: A victorious Britain will seek to punish the rebels both collectively and individually. This will likely include imprisoning and executing most, if not all, of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and principal military commanders. Beyond this things get more complicated, parts of the British government will certainly want to do collective punishments (government reconstructions in Massachusetts and Virginia are very likely) but there are British politicians who sympathized with the Americans and there is the very real possibility of stoking another rebellion down the line
Slaves: IOTL roughly 3000 emancipated slaves fled with the British after the war. Without having to flee there will likely be substantially more, add to this that emancipating the slaves of rebelling slaveholders could be an appealing punishment and there is a substantially larger free black population. Will the British still pursue a plan of resettling them in Africa (OTL Sierra Leone), will they allow these free blacks to remain in America, will they try and split the difference (Florida would be British too and relatively uninhabited)
Native Americans: How serious are the British going to be about the Line of Proclamation, now that they've seen the length that the colonists will go to fight it?
Punishment: A victorious Britain will seek to punish the rebels both collectively and individually. This will likely include imprisoning and executing most, if not all, of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and principal military commanders. Beyond this things get more complicated, parts of the British government will certainly want to do collective punishments (government reconstructions in Massachusetts and Virginia are very likely) but there are British politicians who sympathized with the Americans and there is the very real possibility of stoking another rebellion down the line
Slaves: IOTL roughly 3000 emancipated slaves fled with the British after the war. Without having to flee there will likely be substantially more, add to this that emancipating the slaves of rebelling slaveholders could be an appealing punishment and there is a substantially larger free black population. Will the British still pursue a plan of resettling them in Africa (OTL Sierra Leone), will they allow these free blacks to remain in America, will they try and split the difference (Florida would be British too and relatively uninhabited)
Native Americans: How serious are the British going to be about the Line of Proclamation, now that they've seen the length that the colonists will go to fight it?
Last edited:
Britain would be unlikely to take massive retaliatory action because if they did the premise of the UK winning in any meaningful sense goes out of the window, and the revolution would be victorious a few years later. In a situation like BNA in the period Government in the end could not be secured except by consent . .
There are so very many butterflies.
- Its likely that the subsequent post imperial, Canada-esq nations (and it will be plural) that the British gradually set up on the North American continent, will ultimately be very regionalised units-New England, The Carolinas etc. Its very debatable that the British possessions will extend coast to coast-at least not following the roughly modern day US borders, because....
- The French and possibly the Spanish will retain certain North American possessions, because its very possible that there is not going to be a French revolution, if the American revolution fails (The American revolution had a large influence on the French revolution). Consequently, there is no guarantee that the Spanish will sign over Louisiana to France, or that France will sell it to anyone-there wont be a US to sell it too, and the French are never very likely to sell such a large territory to their mortal enemies, the British.
- Slavery in the Americas is doomed. Remaining linked to the UK, means remaining linked to the burgeoning British Abolitionist cause, which resulted in the UK abolishing the slave trade not many years after the OTL US achieved its independence, and long before the US.
- Many other nations which saw great numbers of US loyalists settle post revolution, will have a very different make up without a successful revolution. No need to flee the US if your side wins. For example, Canada might remain considerably more French if loyalists from further south dont feel the need to settle.
- Countries like Australia, and even India as we know it, might look extremely different. If the Americas remain the nucleus of the First British Empire, the Second might never even happen and European presence in the Subcontinent remains limited to coastal trading outposts. If the French revolution doesnt happen, then the Napoleonic Wars dont happen, in which case the territorial transfers that it provoked around the world dont automatically happen-South Africa remains Dutch for example, or the Holy Roman Empire remains the chaotic hellscape it was without Napoleon, so potentially no unified Germany, or an Austrian led one instead,
Last edited:
Beatriz
Kicked
If we want no American Revolution and no French Revolution a la the Two Georges, enlightened absolutism will remain around longer and will interact with the centralization of power afforded by the Industrial Revolution although how this interacts with a growing class of industrialists and the labor movement(?) is unclear, as well as the impact of Jeremy Bentham (who wrote an essay against the American Revolution ) and his successsors
Also what would a counter-Benthamist movement look like?
Also what would a counter-Benthamist movement look like?
Last edited:
There would be so many butterflies it’s not even funny. But the extremity of many of these butterflies may in fact come down to the Netherlands, which had a Revolution that also inspired the French Revolution in addition to the American War of Independence. By the time the Declaration of Independence was issued the Dutch had already been smuggling tea and weapons (among other things) into the Americas for a while and the Declaration itself saw polarizing reception. With or without the American Revolution, resentment from the middle and lower classes was increasing and it was only a matter of time something happened it the in the Netherlands. It may or may not influence France and by extension the rest of the world.
As far as the Americas themselves go, I don’t think the British would be comfortable with a unified North America so odds are it would be be Balkanized into a number of smaller countries.
As far as the Americas themselves go, I don’t think the British would be comfortable with a unified North America so odds are it would be be Balkanized into a number of smaller countries.
Oh and if anything I can see slavery lasting longer and becoming ingrained not just in the Southern colonies but the Middle colonies too (particularly New Jersey and New York which were known as slave trade hubs and as hotbeds of Loyalism in the Revolution) since the soil was healthy there and the Crown was highly connected with the slave trade. Severing with the Crown OTL caused America to lose much of its connection with the trade. And in spite of that, more slaves were imported from the American Revolution to OTL’s abolition of the slave trade in 1807 in the USA than in any other time in American history. So I expect the future of slavery to be more ambiguous than many people would think.
Last edited:
If no American independence equals no French Revolution equals no Napoleonic War, then South Africa remains Dutch, which means a Boer/Afrikaaner ascendancy in Southern Africa without the amelioration of British settlers which served to dampen the largely Afrikaaner influenced pro Apartheid tendency that occurred IOTL.
Which on other words, means Apartheid South Africa x10, probably earlier
Last edited:
This does indirectly lead to the question on if this changes much of anything on the British monarchy (or monarchy elsewhere). The war was about things done by Parliament, not about the power of Parliament vs. the King, after all.
It's a common rhetorical device amongst American propagandists that they were fighting a war against Tyrannical King George.
Whereas anyone with even the slightest knowledge of British Constitutional history since at least the 1650s knows that by the time the Revolution erupted, the Monarch has only a minimal input in policy, amd their true war was with parliament and the government.
I'd imagine little would really change in the relationship between monarch and parliament, in the UK at least. The drift in power from the crown to parliament would continue much as it did in real life.
There are nearly two and a half centuries between the Revolution and the present. That's time for a lot of stuff, especially when George III was not a figurehead.
Not an absolute monarch, by any means, but somewhat more than decorative as far as the state of things in Britain (as opposed to things shifting from traditional "oh no, we totally support the King and we just question his evil advisers" to "evil king is redundant").
Beatriz
Kicked
But does these events prevent a general Scramble? Sans Napoleon the Ottomans are likely to be in short-term (1770-1870) better shape if the Balkans aren’t divided between Austria, Russia and New Byzantium, which means no French Algeria
Also, no Anglo-French War or Anglo-Dutch War as we know it since they were concurrent and intertwined with the American Revolution. Something similar may break out at a slightly later time but I’m not sure.
While this TL might eventually see dominions and secession, there’s also a chance that control of North America causes the British Empire to federalise. By 1900 what’s now the Eastern seaboard of the US would probably be the true centre of such an Empire.
However, maybe the growth of the OTL US would be retarded. Immigration would be unlikely to occur at the same levels. British North America would not be nearly as attractive to the Germans who went to the US in the wake of the European Spring. British and Protestant people would probably be favoured, which in turn means fewer colonists for Australia, NZ and Canada.
However, maybe the growth of the OTL US would be retarded. Immigration would be unlikely to occur at the same levels. British North America would not be nearly as attractive to the Germans who went to the US in the wake of the European Spring. British and Protestant people would probably be favoured, which in turn means fewer colonists for Australia, NZ and Canada.