WI: American Revolution crushed?

And if the numbers given by some here about Native American populations in the millions (15,000,000!?:eek:) are true, how did the White Man ever manage to penetrate a population greater than his own? Whiskey, smallpox, and guns? Exploiting tribalism among the Natives? Because if true, then making a Native American National Entity was impossible. They didn't speak the same language, and were blood enemies as often as indifferent as often as allied. But NOT united.

Yes indeed, I think that any united Indian TL would need to deal with the problem of how exactly you get all these disparate tribes to unite. Heck, just look at the difficulties the Greeks had in uniting against the Persians -- at the time of Xerxes' invasion, the majority of Greek city-states were either neutral or pro-Persian, despite the fact that the Greeks had far more in common (in terms of shared language, culture, history and religion) than the Native American tribes did. Or look at the Gauls versus the Romans, the Germans versus the Romans, the Britons vs. the Saxons, the Spaniards vs. the Moors, the Christians vs. the Ottomans, the... Well, you get the point. Even in the face of an obvious threat, and even with the advantages of having a common language, culture, and/or religion to bind people together, it's often hugely difficult to get independent countries to properly co-ordinate their efforts over any period of time.

Of course, it wouldn't be impossible to do a plausible scenario in which a large empire manages to take control of all or most of the Mississippi basin, along the lines of Imperial China or a scaled-up version of Ancient Egypt. That way the entire area would eventually become a single cultural and political bloc, able to present a united front to the Europeans when they finally reached them. Such a scenario would require a POD centuries or even millennia before Columbus' discovery of America, though.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, yes, the imperial power often found the act of

They were certainly thought guilty by the standards of the governing body of the United Kingdom, of mutiny. (Usually considered a crime.)
I also notice that you've not addressed Canada.


Well, yes, the imperial power often found the act of resistance to be criminal. Shocking, that.:rolleyes:

Sorry, what was I supposed to address about Canada?

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
You know, it's sort of a lost cause, but this is NOT

:rolleyes:

Well, if we're counting partial abolition, slavery was abolished in the UK after Somerset v. Steward in 1772. And if we're counting racial oppression as slavery, America didn't get rid of *that* until the 1960s, a century after the Civil War. Plus there's the small fact that the Royal Navy took an active and vigorous role in suppressing the international slave trade, for which America almost declared war on the UK in 1858.

Still, feel free to tell us why all of this is really thanks to Uncle Sam. :rolleyes:

You know, it's sort of a lost cause, but this is NOT about bragging rights.

Sorry if that's too subtle, but none of the umpteen million enslaved on either side of the Atlantic cared that the West was, slowly, finding its way toward humanity on the question...

It's like Gandhi's quote about Christianity...

And perhaps that one is too subtle, as well.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Not certain that public relations, 1770 style, would

Agreed, so why don't we think along other lines, for example one step of recognizing the 13 colonies on more equal terms could be to change the heir apparent's title from Prince of Wales to Crown Prince of North America... or something to that affect, and they take residence there. I know such an idea is unlikely, but I think making such a situation work pragmatically prior to the mid 19th century would need some outside of the box thinking to ensure north american settlers still consider themselves 'british' to some extent.

Not certain that public relations, 1770 style, would make any difference.

The Americans (13 colonies) had far greater traditions of suffrage among white males and local government than anyone in Ireland and much (most?) of Great Britain did, and reconciling that reality with appointed royal governors and no representation in London seems pretty much a circle that could not be squared by the 1700s, especially with the example of what happened to the truly evolutionary ideas put forward in the English Civil War.

Best,
 
You know, it's sort of a lost cause, but this is NOT about bragging rights.

If you'll recall, I was responding to Perfidious Albion's question about why so many posters seem obsessed with the idea that a world without the USA would see mass enslavement in perpetuity. Although since you bring the topic up, your responses seem to exemplify the sort of cognitive dissonance-based arguments I was talking about. "Hey, America and Britain did just the same! They both abolished slavery at the same time! Well, kinda the same time. Not that anybody cared, really. Why are you turning this into a bragging competition?"

Sorry if that's too subtle, but none of the umpteen million enslaved on either side of the Atlantic cared that the West was, slowly, finding its way toward humanity on the question...

So none of the slaves cared that they were being set free? Huh, how strange.

Also, what's all this "on either side of the Atlantic" business? Unlike America, Britain never had any significant number of slaves in it, and certainly not "umpteen millions" of them. Of course, there were a fair few people being enslaved by the native kingdoms of West Africa -- whether there were "umpteen millions" of them I don't know -- but somehow, I doubt that they're the ones you were thinking of.
 
Well, yes, the imperial power often found the act of resistance to be criminal. Shocking, that.:rolleyes:

Sorry, what was I supposed to address about Canada?

Best,

Mutiny's considered a crime in pretty much every country in the world, including non-imperialist ones. As indeed is rebellion. If you doubt this, feel free to try and overthrow the US government and see how they treat you.
 
Top