What would the American Revolution have been called had the British won?

Or the 'American group' is so thoroughly discredited that the colonists try to be so loyalist they are beyond reproach. American would be synonymous with treason, hard to see many people wanting to tar themselves with that brush.

Perhaps this could eventually lead to incorporation and the colonies becoming counties.

Without knowing how the war ends or who is the dominant party in parliament afterwards, it's hard to judge.
A British victory isn't going to change the fact that Americans and Brits are increasingly drifting apart, any more than the ruthless suppression of the Sepoy Mutiny ensured that India would always remain loyal, the suppression of the Mau-Mau preserved British Kenya, the various failed Irish rebellions over the centuries ended Irish discontent, etc.

Colonial elites develop differences with motherland, start to question why they are still obeying orders from Europe, and decide to change that is hardly a uniquely US occurrence.
 
A British victory isn't going to change the fact that Americans and Brits are increasingly drifting apart, any more than the ruthless suppression of the Sepoy Mutiny ensured that India would always remain loyal, the suppression of the Mau-Mau preserved British Kenya, the various failed Irish rebellions over the centuries ended Irish discontent, etc.

Colonial elites develop differences with motherland, start to question why they are still obeying orders from Europe, and decide to change that is hardly a uniquely US occurrence.

Stop making sense!:mad:
 
Or the 'American group' is so thoroughly discredited that the colonists try to be so loyalist they are beyond reproach. American would be synonymous with treason, hard to see many people wanting to tar themselves with that brush.

Perhaps this could eventually lead to incorporation and the colonies becoming counties.

Without knowing how the war ends or who is the dominant party in parliament afterwards, it's hard to judge.

The best you could hope for is a sort of fracturing of the colonies, so that each go their own separate ways after another revolution. Or form into a series of separate ways.

The British could probably crush maybe two revolutions before the population becomes too much to control. Holding the entirety of the 13 colonies beyond 1800 by force is a tenuous proposition at best, and utterly impossible beyond a certain point.

Now Britain could try a divide and conquer strategy, which might work out for some places (maybe say New England turns around while the Southern states and their peculiar institution go their own way with the more inland states seeking westward expansion and river industry over anything else) but even then you simply end up with multiple states that Britain can at best play off against one another.

Holding the whole shebang from Quebec City to Charleston just isn't in the cards forever.
 
The best you could hope for is a sort of fracturing of the colonies, so that each go their own separate ways after another revolution. Or form into a series of separate ways.

In the northern colonies, assuming also later developed ones to take the place of the modern day trans-Appalachians, forming new colonies is one thing. But the LOCs will demand cooperation over conflict.

The British could probably crush maybe two revolutions before the population becomes too much to control. Holding the entirety of the 13 colonies beyond 1800 by force is a tenuous proposition at best, and utterly impossible beyond a certain point.

Indeed. In peacetime immigration in the North will continue apace, especially with all the troubles going on in Europe.

Now Britain could try a divide and conquer strategy, which might work out for some places (maybe say New England turns around while the Southern states and their peculiar institution go their own way with the more inland states seeking westward expansion and river industry over anything else) but even then you simply end up with multiple states that Britain can at best play off against one another.

As above, requirements of internal trade and control of the NA river system (Ohio, Mississippi, Missouri) and the Great Lakes will mandate no conflicts. The moneyed interests will themselves HAVE no interest in such things. As land-locked regions, a great maritime power like Britain will have little ability to mettle. When they tried OTL, they only united the Colonials against them. You had pronounced Anglophobes in positions of high power in the USA as recently as WWII,:eek: and this was in a world with no British conquest of an American rebellion.:mad:

If the British attempt to play the Antebellum South against the rest of America, which I believe they CAN do, that puts them on the side of unrepentant Slavery. And sadly for the UK to back the Anti-Slavery States against the Antebellum South just wasn't politically in the cards...:(

Holding the whole shebang from Quebec City to Charleston just isn't in the cards forever.

Agreed. Especially Quebec. Too many cultural, language, and religious differences already between Canada and the "American Colonies".
 
Why would a failed American Revolution inevitably lead to a second one?

I would think that if it ended early enough and the British response was not too draconian the colonies might well settle down.

American unity OTL was in part a response to being bordered by British North America and fears of further conflicts with the British Empire.

Real fear and hatred of Britain was a result of the revolution not a cause of it.

Without this I could see the various colonies developing along different lines.

Things like slavery would still be abolished across the Empire, whether the southern colonies were happy or not - perhaps they would rebel then, but I don't see the rest of the colonies joining them to save slavery.

However I don't think it is inevitable that you end up with a republic "from sea to shining sea!"
 
Hahahahahahahahahaha.

No.

.... I know my suggestion was extreme, but a quelled revolt, smothered in its infancy does not have the same effects as a long drawn out conflict where both sides have a chance to become entrenched in their views. At the outbreak of the revolt only a tiny minority wanted independence.

There is no way with any certainty what would happen after that. Parliament may be concilliatory, or it may punish the colonies.

Economically the British would quickly lean towards free trade, which would solve a lot of the colonies issues. (Though without the revolution it is of course not definite. Though given that the Wealth of Nations was written in 1776 it seems fair to assume it still would be and that change would come) so an unsuccessful revolt would not necessarily lead to another.

A British victory isn't going to change the fact that Americans and Brits are increasingly drifting apart, any more than the ruthless suppression of the Sepoy Mutiny ensured that India would always remain loyal, the suppression of the Mau-Mau preserved British Kenya, the various failed Irish rebellions over the centuries ended Irish discontent, etc.

Colonial elites develop differences with motherland, start to question why they are still obeying orders from Europe, and decide to change that is hardly a uniquely US occurrence.

Except that 'American' as seperate from English or British was not all that widespread an identity. The Irish and Indians were distinctly different groups; they never rebelled for not receiving their 'rights as Englishmen' for example.

A failed revolution may delay the phenomenon long enough for the situation to change. It may not. Neither would be certain.

My county suggestion was fairly flippant, but the idea that 'Americans' were predestined to appear and be in violent opposition to the British is by no means a certainty. The British had perhaps the most freedoms of any contemporary european monarchy. Parliament held a great deal of power and tory government was a relative abberation for the time. If the revolution had been stopped immediately then conditions would quickly alter to the point another would be unlikely. The revolutionaries were in the right place at the right time.

The best you could hope for is a sort of fracturing of the colonies, so that each go their own separate ways after another revolution. Or form into a series of separate ways.

The British could probably crush maybe two revolutions before the population becomes too much to control. Holding the entirety of the 13 colonies beyond 1800 by force is a tenuous proposition at best, and utterly impossible beyond a certain point.

Now Britain could try a divide and conquer strategy, which might work out for some places (maybe say New England turns around while the Southern states and their peculiar institution go their own way with the more inland states seeking westward expansion and river industry over anything else) but even then you simply end up with multiple states that Britain can at best play off against one another.

Holding the whole shebang from Quebec City to Charleston just isn't in the cards forever.
That is only with an unfriendly populace, which is not a given. Preventing the revolutionarys gaining support and quickly eliminating the agitators would prevent most of the events that turned a lot of the population against the British (and helped them discover a distinct American identity).

Of course reforms were essential to a peaceful BNA but if you look at the trends in British politics, they likely would have eventually come. At which point violent opposition becomes less likely.

Edit; to specify, seperate colonial identities may form, or an alt-American identity, but it wouldn't necessarily be antithetical to a concurrent British one. Like the other dominions when their identities were forming.
 
Last edited:
I agree it depends on how it plays out?

The Brothers War - stronger revolutionary v loyalist element
The British Civil War or Second Civil War - I always liked the idea that the Revolution was the next round in the people v priviledge struggle that began withh the English Civil War
The War of British Aggression - delusional people can exist in any TL!
The Smugglers' Revolt - let's face it in the early days the problem wasn't so much 'Taxation without representation' as it was rich New England smugglers getting put out of business. Let's say the Tea Party goes awry and colonial authorities succeed in painting the initial rabble rousers with the smugglers label.
 
A British victory isn't going to change the fact that Americans and Brits are increasingly drifting apart, any more than the ruthless suppression of the Sepoy Mutiny ensured that India would always remain loyal, the suppression of the Mau-Mau preserved British Kenya, the various failed Irish rebellions over the centuries ended Irish discontent, etc.

Colonial elites develop differences with motherland, start to question why they are still obeying orders from Europe, and decide to change that is hardly a uniquely US occurrence.

Or the Jacobite Revolts, or the Canadian Rebellion, or the Rum Rebellion...
 
I think we need to be careful with using the term America. Lets remember that the 13 colonies were not the only British Colonies on the North American Continent at the time. Depending on how far the failed revolution gets before it is put down (or perhaps ends itself through diplomacy). If it is put down before the Declaration of Independence I suspect it would mostly be remembered as a Boston/Mass revolt.

--
Bill
 
The Freedonian Rebellion
The first Colombian Revolt

Remember even the revolutianries oppossed the term United States of America at the beginning.
 
I would think that if it ended early enough and the British response was not too draconian the colonies might well settle down.

I don't know very much about this, but I'm under the impression that taxation of the colonies was actually fairly light in comparison to what was happening in the home country. So, with that in mind, I can't see how the British wouldn't be quite harsh -or- at the very least, not much change in that regard, and so another revolt happening down the track.

Consider it from the British side: These guys are complaining about being taxed LESS than the rest of the empire

Consider it from the Revolutionary side: We don't want taxation without representation.

Unless either of these things change to satisfy both parties, it's gonna happen again.
 
I don't know very much about this, but I'm under the impression that taxation of the colonies was actually fairly light in comparison to what was happening in the home country. So, with that in mind, I can't see how the British wouldn't be quite harsh -or- at the very least, not much change in that regard, and so another revolt happening down the track.

Consider it from the British side: These guys are complaining about being taxed LESS than the rest of the empire

Consider it from the Revolutionary side: We don't want taxation without representation.

Unless either of these things change to satisfy both parties, it's gonna happen again.

Ugh. It's so tiring to hear the "they revolted over taxes" myth. No, they protested over taxes. They revolted over the response to those protests, which was the banning of public meetings; the closing down of democratic assemblies; the closing down of an entire city wrecking livelihoods in the process; and the requirement that people accused of crimes had to spend months going to trial in England would any recompense for lost earnings.
 
I don't know very much about this, but I'm under the impression that taxation of the colonies was actually fairly light in comparison to what was happening in the home country. So, with that in mind, I can't see how the British wouldn't be quite harsh -or- at the very least, not much change in that regard, and so another revolt happening down the track.

Consider it from the British side: These guys are complaining about being taxed [SIZE=-4]less[/SIZE] than the rest of the empire

Consider it from the Revolutionary side: We don't want taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

Unless either of these things change to satisfy both parties, it's gonna happen again.

Fixed it for you:p:D;)

Ugh. It's so tiring to hear the "they revolted over taxes" myth. No, they protested over taxes. They revolted over the response to those protests, which was the banning of public meetings; the closing down of democratic assemblies; the closing down of an entire city wrecking livelihoods in the process; and the requirement that people accused of crimes had to spend months going to trial in England would any recompense for lost earnings.

Now, now. It's not just in America where we have our precious myths...:eek:
 
Last edited:
Ugh. It's so tiring to hear the "they revolted over taxes" myth. No, they protested over taxes. They revolted over the response to those protests, which was the banning of public meetings; the closing down of democratic assemblies; the closing down of an entire city wrecking livelihoods in the process; and the requirement that people accused of crimes had to spend months going to trial in England would any recompense for lost earnings.

Yeah, nobody was willing to die over a 3 cent tea tax. The actual revolt uncoincidentally happened after most of the population of Boston was forcibly unemployed.

And actually a large percentage of all of New England would have been unemployed under the New England Restraining Act that was passed in retaliation for the colonial embargo on British goods (which was itself enacted in retaliation for the Boston Port Act), but the revolt broke out about a month after it was passed, so it didn't have time to actually be put into effect, though the colonists knew it would be.
 
The British government actually lowered the functional tax on Americans. It was clearly not about the sum of money getting taxed, but how it was getting taxed.
 
The British government actually lowered the functional tax on Americans. It was clearly not about the sum of money getting taxed, but how it was getting taxed.

Well, on tea anyway. They removed the customs duty while keeping the tax, which lowered the overall cost in the colonies. Of course, we all know what happened next...
 
Top