WI: Britain won the American revolution

Its kinda odd that I've seen hundreds of stories on the civil war and I can't remember any on the revolution. What would happen if Britain won and managed to hold onto the thirteen colonies like they did with Canada?
 
It's possible that there could be another rebellion somewhere down the line. If Britain makes enough concessions to the colonists so that there are no more rebellions, the center of power would shift to America.
 
Last edited:
Depends on how exactly they win. Like does Washington get caught during his flight, is Cornwallis successful in the South, does Howe not go for Philly and join Burgoyne.
 
The United States will gain independence eventually. It's not going to work out in the long run for both Britain and the U.S. to be part of the same political system, given that the latter is going to surpass the former in terms of population. One side will have to give in too much and won't be happy.

I think at most, what you can do is delay the American Revolution by a generation or two. I'm not sure if that would change the development of the U.S. all that much, but it could change Canadian history significantly. Canada will most likely remain francophone until the independence of the U.S., and if that doesn't happen for another 40 years or whatever, you may see French-Canadian settlement in parts of what is now Ontario. Australia also possibly could be butterflied away. Britain could continue to send convicts to the American colonies and (following their independence) might decide to just send them to Canada, Ireland or somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
France being to busy to stick it to Britain and doesn't actively try and support the revolution should do the trick. That or making London much more willing to discuss things instead of trying to use the colonies for taxes aimed towards fueling european wars they kept jumping into.

The United States will gain independence eventually. It's not going to work out in the long run for both Britain and the U.S. to be part of the same political system, given that the latter is going to surpass the former in terms of population. One side will have to give in too much and won't be happy.

If it doesn't grow beyond 13 Colonies (relatively easily done), i doubt it would be surpassing for quite a while
 
France being to busy to stick it to Britain and doesn't actively try and support the revolution should do the trick. That or making London much more willing to discuss things instead of trying to use the colonies for taxes aimed towards fueling european wars they kept jumping into.



If it doesn't grow beyond 13 Colonies (relatively easily done), i doubt it would be surpassing for quite a while

How is it easily done? People were ignoring the Proclamation Line and moving across the Appalachians throughout the 1760s and 1770s. Also, Americans had a significantly higher birth rate than the British.
 

Morty Vicar

Banned
I'm no expert on this subject, but I once heard that the UK initially underestimated the rebels and sent a relatively weak force to recapture the colonies. They allegedly could have crushed the American Revolution if they wanted to but it didn't consider it worth the effort, as they didn't have any really important resources and there were other more pressing battles to be won at the time.
 
How is it easily done? People were ignoring the Proclamation Line and moving across the Appalachians throughout the 1760s and 1770s. Also, Americans had a significantly higher birth rate than the British.
I suppose the British could try and beef up the Indian Nation, but then that is sort of turning against there own people in favour of the "Natives."

I think the consensus is true that post 7 Years' War, unless Louisiana and the Midwestern Indians have some sort of ASB population boom America and Britian will split unless Britain becomes an equal member of an Anglophone empire including Canada and the Eastern Seaboard, as well as Britain.
 
actually, an interesting take on a failed Revolution would be Disaster at Leuthen, which goes off with the idea that the 7 years war is called off earlier on (due to the PoD which more or less knocks Prussia out of the war, leaving it as Britain vs Europe), hence they have the resources to put it down, and concern that they would be booted off the continent by French support ... and it goes off due to miscommunication and slight mismanagement from the revolts side, with IIRC Thomas Paine revolting ahead of planning playing into the hands of the British.

result is a 13 Colonies (and not really much else) being a British Dominion, roughly on line with Australia and British India (bit ahead but no more than its longer history would account for), in 1915 after ATL WW1
 
actually, an interesting take on a failed Revolution would be Disaster at Leuthen, which goes off with the idea that the 7 years war is called off earlier on (due to the PoD which more or less knocks Prussia out of the war, leaving it as Britain vs Europe), hence they have the resources to put it down, and concern that they would be booted off the continent by French support ... and it goes off due to miscommunication and slight mismanagement from the revolts side, with IIRC Thomas Paine revolting ahead of planning playing into the hands of the British.

result is a 13 Colonies (and not really much else) being a British Dominion, roughly on line with Australia and British India (bit ahead but no more than its longer history would account for), in 1915 after ATL WW1
I know Fritz was a genius and all, but the military aspect of his rule was laid down by his father. I know the POD is him dying in battle but would that really affect the outcome, unless maybe there's no Miracle of the House of Brandenburg because of a lack of respect for the Prussian's which Old Fritz brought.

With that said I haven't read the TL (or actually any TL, ever)
 

Morty Vicar

Banned
I suppose the British could try and beef up the Indian Nation, but then that is sort of turning against there own people in favour of the "Natives."

This happened to some extent, the British were unusually supportive of native's rights in this case, they did a certain amount to guarantee protection of treaties and land boundaries. Even after losing the ARW they went to war again to try to limit the USA to the original 13 colonies.
 
This happened to some extent, the British were unusually supportive of native's rights in this case, they did a certain amount to guarantee protection of treaties and land boundaries. Even after losing the ARW they went to war again to try to limit the USA to the original 13 colonies.
hmm... well I knew about post ARW.

Maybe Britain could sell Louisianna to someone who is their ally and could colonize or at least administer it.

The Dutch I couldn't see colonizing it, the Portugese seem already overstretched and anyone else is a no-go as Britain had no other "friends" except maybe Prussia and they would not take on an overseas territory.

Doesn't look good for a England dominated empire, but who says London can't remain the capital? And maybe break the US up into 10 - 15 states and Britain broke down into 5 or 6 with a split Ireland.
 
This happened to some extent, the British were unusually supportive of native's rights in this case, they did a certain amount to guarantee protection of treaties and land boundaries. Even after losing the ARW they went to war again to try to limit the USA to the original 13 colonies.

No, they didn't. I don't know where you'd get this idea, but they weren't limiting the 13 colonies to the 13 colonies even when they ran them. What they wanted to do was create reservations, keep their Native American allies such as the Iroquois happy, and have orderly western expansion. But the British were continually adding thousands of miles of westward territory to their colonies in North America via treaties with the Native Americans right up until the revolution broke out, and were planning more, such as a colony on the eastern bank of the Mississippi.

And once the United States gained independence, British politicians generally saw American expansion westward (and away from their territory) as almost a good thing. Why? Economics. They wanted the US to continue with a colonial-style economy of providing raw materials while buying British manufactured goods in return. What they absolutely did not want the US to do was look towards the Atlantic and become a rival manufacturing and naval power. The other thing they were extremely concerned about was keeping Canada safe from American ambitions, and hence kept up a system of allying with Native Tribes in the border areas for as long as those tribes could be relied on as a military aid in the event of war with the United States. But Britain never plotted to block off American expansion westward below the Great Lakes, because it would have been nearly impossible.
 

Morty Vicar

Banned
No, they didn't. I don't know where you'd get this idea, but they weren't limiting the 13 colonies to the 13 colonies even when they ran them. What they wanted to do was create reservations, keep their Native American allies such as the Iroquois happy, and have orderly western expansion. But the British were continually adding thousands of miles of westward territory to their colonies in North America via treaties with the Native Americans right up until the revolution broke out, and were planning more, such as a colony on the eastern bank of the Mississippi.

Wikipedia, mainly.

The United States declared war in 1812 for several reasons, including trade restrictions brought about by the British war with France, the impressment of American merchant sailors into the Royal Navy, British support of Indian tribes against American expansion, outrage over insults to national honour after humiliations on the high seas and American interest in annexing British North American territory (part of modern-day Canada), which had been denied to them in the settlement ending the American Revolutionary War.[3]

Btw the term 'reservations' isn't strictly correct, the Indian Reserve was not a reservation as it would be understood today, they only came about after the ARW and westward expansion.The treaties were trading treaties, the Indian Reserve was never a colony, perhaps arguably a protectorate.

And once the United States gained independence, British politicians generally saw American expansion westward (and away from their territory) as almost a good thing. Why? Economics. They wanted the US to continue with a colonial-style economy of providing raw materials while buying British manufactured goods in return. What they absolutely did not want the US to do was look towards the Atlantic and become a rival manufacturing and naval power. The other thing they were extremely concerned about was keeping Canada safe from American ambitions, and hence kept up a system of allying with Native Tribes in the border areas for as long as those tribes could be relied on as a military aid in the event of war with the United States. But Britain never plotted to block off American expansion westward below the Great Lakes, because it would have been nearly impossible.

There was a Royal Proclamation against westward expansion, but it was rescinded to appease the settlers. And as you say it would have been all but impossible to control the border with the Indian Reserve, due to the sheer scale of operations necessary. The decided to arm the Indians and let the colonists take their chances. This somewhat backfired when Indians began raiding into US territory, but so soon after the ARW nobody was shedding many tears over that. In terms of industrialisation and militarisation, at the time (wrongly) this wasn't really a concern in Britain, the US was largely viewed as a rogue colony, not in the modern retrospective of a World superpower, which largely only came about in the nuclear age. You're right about their concerns over Canada, but it wasn't enough of a concern to deploy more than a token number of troops to keep an eye on things.
 
What does winning the war mean for the UK ?

What I want to stress is that the war was asymetric.

A significant apart of the population of the 13 colonies wanted its independance. You can't scratch the continental Congress and the declaration of independance once it happened.

My guess is that if the UK wins the war on the military field - which is possible - it will have no choice but to grant some kind of independance to at least à part of the colonies.

But this would probably imply that the independant colonies' expansion westward will be blocked until the next conflict.
 
I'm no expert on this subject, but I once heard that the UK initially underestimated the rebels and sent a relatively weak force to recapture the colonies. They allegedly could have crushed the American Revolution if they wanted to but it didn't consider it worth the effort, as they didn't have any really important resources and there were other more pressing battles to be won at the time.

They initially sent a very weak force suitable only for riot control, because they weren't expecting the war to break out. Once it did they, if anything, were overly concerned with recapturing the colonies in comparison to their actual importance to the empire and overestimated the damage their being severed from the empire would do, that's why the war dragged on for 8 years. At the time the war broke out Britain had been at peace, France wouldn't enter the war until 3 years later in 1778.


The British were supporting Indian tribes, who were themselves resisting American expansion. The British were mostly concerned with the security of Canada, and the fur trade with those tribes. Wikipedia is....ok, but it's better to read Wikipedia's own sources.

Btw the term 'reservations' isn't strictly correct, the Indian Reserve was not a reservation as it would be understood today, they only came about after the ARW and westward expansion.The treaties were trading treaties, the Indian Reserve was never a colony, perhaps arguably a protectorate.

This is untrue, there were reservations her tribes such as the Mohegans and Wampanoag explicitly referred to as such during the colonial era consisting of a small portion of land set aside for a tribe via treaty, entirely within an existing colony. In other words, identical to later reservations. But you're right, the major Indian Reserves, like the Ohio Territory, were not reservations in the sense they were in the US, they were instead great tracts of territory within which Indian tribes were essentially sovereign protectorates.

There was a Royal Proclamation against westward expansion, but it was rescinded to appease the settlers.

It wasn't ever rescinded, it was being run as originally planned, if not effectively. The Royal Proclamation only applied to private purchases of Native American land, (which were often fraudulent) it was never meant as an immoveable bar to future westward expansion.

In terms of industrialisation and militarisation, at the time (wrongly) this wasn't really a concern in Britain, the US was largely viewed as a rogue colony, not in the modern retrospective of a World superpower, which largely only came about in the nuclear age. You're right about their concerns over Canada, but it wasn't enough of a concern to deploy more than a token number of troops to keep an eye on things.

The US was considered a backwater and unimportant to the British compared to their continental concerns, but the independent United States had been considered a serious threat to the remaining British colonies in North America since before the Treaty of Paris was first signed. Not enough to keep a standing army around in Canada for (especially considering the lack of a US standing army) but nevertheless it was always a concern. Manufacturing and which nations were becoming industrial rivals was definitely a concern to Britain, it was the backbone of their economy.
 
Last edited:
Top