WI Britain won the American Revolution?

[bard32]

This isn't my forte. OTL, Britain lost the American Revolution because it couldn't deal effectively, and diplomatically, with other countries like France,
Spain, The Netherlands, Prussia, and Poland, to deny both material, monetary,
and military support, to the Thirteen Colonies. What would have happened had
Britain been more successful? WI Britain won the American Revolution?

 

[Darkling]

My Guess is something along these lines after something other than an aborted revolution.

Parliament passes the British North America Act.

Colonial legislatures will be overhauled; all will be given an upper house which is made up of appointed for life individuals which the Governor selects.

This body is empowered to veto legislation.

Anybody having a knighthood or greater and having residence in the colony for two years shall automatically be admitted to the upper house.

Governors will now be paid from Britain and not the legislatures.

The legislatures are forced to recognise the suzerainty of parliament over them in both passing legalisation and levying internal taxation should they so wish (although the preferred system is that Parliament requests monies and the legislatures are required to find the necessary revenue).

The colonies also have their borders drawn up in a more fixed manner (including the new colonies of New Ireland and New Connecticut, in addition to Nova Scotia and East Florida which will adopt a similar system under the act).

All colonies must form a ready militia of paid individuals (who undertake their militia duties as secondary job) who shall be at the disposal of the Governor to use in ensuring the public safety and due process of the law.

In addition to this, colonies of sufficient size are to create and maintain a provincial regiment of proper size.

These forces will be based in the Americas and be a full time force.

If Britain should so require they can be sent to any part of the globe.

Each provincial legislature will also send a representative to the Privy Council to ensure they keep touch with the events of the Empire.

The new active militia in addition to the new provincial regiments (Kings Royal New Yorkers etc) are mainly made up of former loyalists and are officered in large part by Americans.

The new upper houses are staffed mostly with Loyalists and prominent neutrals.

The shift in property ownership sees a shift in the franchise patterns in favour of loyalists.

Meanwhile the cause of the rebels is painted as a French conspiracy and those who abetted it can only claim that they were suckered into it and would never support such piffle now that they know.

 

[Legolas]

AFAIK, French support for the Revolution was a significant factor in its success. If the American revolution happens later (or the French revolution happens earlier), so that by the time of the ARW, Europe is busy being conquered by Napoleon, Britain might just go for a cease-fire with France and concentrate on keeping its colonial possessions intact.

 

[Analytical Engine]

The colonies also have their borders drawn up in a more fixed manner (including the new colonies of New Ireland and New Connecticut, in addition to Nova Scotia and East Florida which will adopt a similar system under the act).

New Ireland?

 

[pompejus]

New Ireland is an island off Papua New Guinea. There wasnt (as far as my knowledge goes) a colony with that name ,but with high Irish immigration to British America there could have been after AR.

Seems like as good a name as Nova Scotia or New England (or new south wales)

 

[Analytical Engine]

But without a latinisation of the name, it might encourage an Irish nationalist base in British America that London doesnt want or need.

Nova Hibernia...

 

[Darkling]

New Ireland?

It is what the British called Maine after they captured it in the ARW.

 

[Nicomacheus]

My Guess is something along these lines after something other than an aborted revolution.

Parliament passes the British North America Act.

Colonial legislatures will be overhauled; all will be given an upper house which is made up of appointed for life individuals which the Governor selects.

This body is empowered to veto legislation.

Anybody having a knighthood or greater and having residence in the colony for two years shall automatically be admitted to the upper house.

Governors will now be paid from Britain and not the legislatures.

The legislatures are forced to recognise the suzerainty of parliament over them in both passing legalisation and levying internal taxation should they so wish (although the preferred system is that Parliament requests monies and the legislatures are required to find the necessary revenue).

The colonies also have their borders drawn up in a more fixed manner (including the new colonies of New Ireland and New Connecticut, in addition to Nova Scotia and East Florida which will adopt a similar system under the act).

All colonies must form a ready militia of paid individuals (who undertake their militia duties as secondary job) who shall be at the disposal of the Governor to use in ensuring the public safety and due process of the law.

In addition to this, colonies of sufficient size are to create and maintain a provincial regiment of proper size.

These forces will be based in the Americas and be a full time force.

If Britain should so require they can be sent to any part of the globe.

Each provincial legislature will also send a representative to the Privy Council to ensure they keep touch with the events of the Empire.

The new active militia in addition to the new provincial regiments (Kings Royal New Yorkers etc) are mainly made up of former loyalists and are officered in large part by Americans.

The new upper houses are staffed mostly with Loyalists and prominent neutrals.

The shift in property ownership sees a shift in the franchise patterns in favour of loyalists.

Meanwhile the cause of the rebels is painted as a French conspiracy and those who abetted it can only claim that they were suckered into it and would never support such piffle now that they know.

Very interesting system! I like the use of the Privy Council (rather than Parliament) as a means of coordinating Imperial efforts. IIRC, though, most colonies had upper houses very much like the ones you mention; the primary changes would be membership for life and the ability of British aristocracy to become members upon residence.

The pay of Governors by Britain is likely to be seen as the most oppresive feature, but if Parliament is paying them, Parliament may keep a better eye on them. Also, who gets the choice of Privy Councilor, the Governor or the Legislature?

The requirement for the militia may also engender resentment. The extent is probably dependent on the authoritiy of Crown troops in the colonies (and quartering and the like). This system seems to envision the milias replacing the Redcoats, so the colonies would be policing themselves.

 

[Darkling]

Very interesting system! I like the use of the Privy Council (rather than Parliament) as a means of coordinating Imperial
efforts.

It allows representation on matters of foreign affairs, the granting of charters (such as opening up new areas for settlement), trade and the final court of appeal whilst not opening up the can of worms that is parliamentary reform.

It is exactly the sort of make do solution the British constitution loves.

IIRC, though, most colonies had upper houses very much like the ones you mention; the primary changes would be membership for life and the ability of British aristocracy to become members upon residence.

Yes, although it wouldn't strictly be British aristocracy as most of those in the house would be Americans given honours or a peerage.

The pay of Governors by Britain is likely to be seen as the most oppresive feature, but if Parliament is paying them, Parliament may keep a better eye on them.

Indeed, given that the legislature controlled the Governor by threatening his salary this essentially makes the governors free agents outside of the control
of the legislature and would be viewed as somewhat tyrannical in the more hysterical sections.

I also envision governors being appointed by the King (meaning the PM)in all the colonies which would annoy Rhode Island and Connecticut (IIRC) which had held elections for the position previously.

Also, who gets the choice of Privy Councilor, the Governor or the Legislature?

The legislature votes, it doesn't make a great deal of sense for the governor to be able to veto such a decision but it could be overlooked when drawing up such a plan in London.

The requirement for the militia may also engender resentment. The extent is probably dependent on the authoritiy of Crown troops in the colonies (and quartering and the like). This system seems to envision the milias replacing the Redcoats, so the colonies would be policing themselves.

Essentially what was done in Ireland(Irish govenrment troops supplemented with local notables raising and paying for yeomanry/militia) with the British troops as and when needed.

Basically the loyalists would form a structure which would run America for the British like the Protestant Ascendancy did in Ireland; although it would be far easier for an American to enter the elite than for a catholic Irishman so the same sort of underclass wouldn't quite develop.

 

[Nicomacheus]

It allows representation on matters of foreign affairs, the granting of charters (such as opening up new areas for settlement), trade and the final court of appeal whilst not opening up the can of worms that is parliamentary reform.

It is exactly the sort of make do solution the British constitution loves.

It may have interesting results on future colonies, though. And repurcussions on which organs of state attain prominence through the 19th century. Huzzah for unwritten constitutions.

Yes, although it wouldn't strictly be British aristocracy as most of those in the house would be Americans given honours or a peerage.

True, but Americans with peerages staying in the colonies would be a move in and of itself. OTL what few there were usually went to Britain on gaining nobility / honors.

Indeed, given that the legislature controlled the Governor by threatening his salary this essentially makes the governors free agents outside of the control of the legislature and would be viewed as somewhat tyrannical in the more hysterical sections.

I also envision governors being appointed by the King (meaning the PM)in all the colonies which would annoy Rhode Island and Connecticut (IIRC) which had held elections for the position previously.

Especially because it seems like the provisions that require a size that can support a militia might cast a dour eye on skimpy Rhode Island. Nevertheless, one they get over their indecision, they'll probably have the most expereince with a PM like system that's sure to develop within each colony.

 

[bard32]

In this timeline, the British hang the military and political leadership of the
Revolution, which includes George Washington, et. al. Unless, of course, the
British are open to an unconditional surrender of the Continental Army and
Navy, and King George III goes mad, and the Prince of Wales becomes his
guardian. The Prince of Wales, acting as Regent, like he did IOTL, although
much later, and pardons the leaders of the Revolution, including the Continental Congress, and the Continental Army and Navy, and allows the
Continental soldiers and Marines to bring their muskets home.

 

[Darkling]

It may have interesting results on future colonies, though. And repurcussions on which organs of state attain prominence through the 19th century. Huzzah for unwritten constitutions.

It would probably eventually evolve into some sort of Imperial council and eventually a senate type arrangement.

True, but Americans with peerages staying in the colonies would be a move in and of itself. OTL what few there were usually went to Britain on gaining nobility / honors.

Not really a lot of them got them in OTL, I'm envisioning a lot loyalists getting knighthoods and whilst some might leave for Britain many would prefer to rule in hell.... ermmm the colonies.

Especially because it seems like the provisions that require a size that can support a militia might cast a dour eye on skimpy Rhode Island. Nevertheless, one they get over their indecision, they'll probably have the most expereince with a PM like system that's sure to develop within each colony.

We would probably see something similiar to what happened with Canada with a governor chosen cabinet/executive council eventually giving way to one based solely upon who held the legislature.

 

[fhaessig]

AFAIK, French support for the Revolution was a significant factor in its success. If the American revolution happens later (or the French revolution happens earlier), so that by the time of the ARW, Europe is busy being conquered by Napoleon, Britain might just go for a cease-fire with France and concentrate on keeping its colonial possessions intact.

Actually, if there is not US revolution, the french one is likely to occur a bit later, since France won't bankrupt itself subsidizing the US. This means less malcontent with the King, and enough money to buy grain to tide over the bad crops of 88-89. So, no General estates and the kingdoms continues for a while.

It may reform and end as a (slightly ) constitutionnal monarchy, or end up with a violent conflagration even more radical than OTL ( if Babeuf dominates, eg ), half a dozen year later; the situation is that unstable

 

[Nicomacheus]

With no FR and the debts of France eventually settled, Louis XVI might embark on some audacious foreign policy in the mould of his Great, Great grandfather.....

True, but this probably has the effect of causing the financial difficulties of OTL's Revolution. Hence, you have a new cause for your alt-FR but you need a very good reason for the new adventure. My sense is that Louis' desire for revenge against the British played a not inconsiderable role in adducing him to back the Americans. Without such an animus, he may need a more tempting target.

 

[Nicomacheus]

This sort of ties back with an inadequate reason for an adventure elsewhere. I cant really think of a Cassus Belli; i remember in Robert Harvey's War of Wars, it mentions Pitt the Younger threatening war with Russia over some incident, and the Russians seriously scared. And the British and the Russians fought on opposite sides during the Seven Years War.....Im certain Louis would go with a war against GB (he hated us due to the Treaty of Paris), but theres a lot of butterflies there.

I suppose it's possible. What front are the British going to fight the Russians on? Seems like an easy chance for an status quo ante bellum war, but I can't see the British taking things beyond threats.

If I can make a suggestion: If you're going to introduce more butterflies, I'd encourage you to game things out year by year, playing the roles of the various countries as you would a chess board. Hell, you might even print a map and use it as a board. I'm doing this for my TL and it helps.

 

[wolfstar]

There would be a second revolution when the British abolish slavery. And the brits would lose for sure the second time around. World might be a very dark and evil place that way.

 

[Flocculencio]

There would be a second revolution when the British abolish slavery. And the brits would lose for sure the second time around. World might be a very dark and evil place that way.

Why would they? If the war is over slavery, the Northern States (Colonies, provinces, what have you) will still most likely be in favour of abolition since they never developed slave-dependent economies. They're not likely to side with the slaveholding colonies over that.

 

[Darkling]

There would be a second revolution when the British abolish slavery. And the brits would lose for sure the second time around. World might be a very dark and evil place that way.

You can't make such an assertion.

The big land/slavery barons could very well be loyalists and thus well disposed to not upsetting a government system that benefits them.

An earlier abolition than the OTL US and a more conciliatory position (payment for freed slaves etc) would take a lot of the animus out of the debate.

Rebellion may have been discredited, secession won't have been the founding principle of the state etc etc.

That is before we get to the military aspects, so definitive statements are unsupported.

 

[Tocomocho]

Why would Britain ban slavery while it was profitable for her?

 

[Nicomacheus]

Why would Britain ban slavery while it was profitable for her?

Moral outrage. And the growing fear of the working classes that they themselves will be enslaved or that slave labor will compete with them for jobs. Now, the problem is that these factors aren't going to be able to compete with the profit margins of slavery (assuming Eli Whitney invents the cotton gin) until a bit later than William Wilberforce, but probably earlier than the US' OTL Civil War. My guess is that the issue comes to ahead in the 1830s.