WI:France does not support the American War of Independence

Err... They broke the British FIRST empire, which didn't stop them from their Second Empire. So that was not in the long run in France's advantage.

It also broke the French state, which was NOT to France's advantage.

So, I'd have to disagree with you here.

You can't look at it that way, you are applying hindsight. The French don't think a revolution is coming, certainly not the bloody affair which will include the execution of a king and his queen, and a war from which France will take decades to recover.

From France's point of view in the ARW you see the following:

1. You have been fighting Britain for dominance for a century, and Britain is winning. They have siezed your largest colony (Quebec), and you have sold the other to Spain (Louisiana). Britain is on the verge of victory in North America, their colonies are richer, more populous, and LAND HUNGRY. If Britain keeps their colonies they WILL take more of New Spain, which will put France in an even worse position.

2. The colonies are in revolt, and not just in revolt, but they have shown they can WIN. They have defeated and captured British armies, fought from a position of incredible weakness against the most powerful nation on Earth, without any advantages other than terrain.

With these two together, see an oppurtunity? The French did, which was why they intervened. This was a chance to essentially bring the British down a peg, regain territory, and strip Britain of its most prosperous colonies. Why wouldn't France take the opportunity?

So I agree with those who say the best oppurtunity would be to have the Americans lose far worse early in the Revolution, no Saratoga or the like. Eventually the war grinds on as France only gives limited financial aid and arms, mainly as a way to keep Britain focused on North America while France looks elsewhere.

Britain eventually wins, and from there we have two possibilities.

First, Britain could be, well merciful. Recognize that the Americans had legitimate grievances and make an attempt an equitable settlement. This scenario eventually ends with Britain far stronger with the resources of North America behind it.

Second, Britain could be harsh, executing colonial leaders, leveling higher taxes, etc. Essentially inflame the colonies so that even more of the population turns against them. This guarantees another war, and could potentially lead to another Ireland for Britain, except one with a rapidly growing population, a lot of land and resources, and which is very, very far away.
 
Let's think about this. Instead of supporting the Americans, France.. does nothing. Yay. Britain and the colonies come to a compromise of some kind, as Franklin threatened they would do without French intervention.

Then, in 1787, when there's a war over some damn thing in the Balkans, the American colonies pour onto Louisiana like a horde of locusts.

This seems troubling.
 
Let's think about this. Instead of supporting the Americans, France.. does nothing. Yay. Britain and the colonies come to a compromise of some kind, as Franklin threatened they would do without French intervention.

Then, in 1787, when there's a war over some damn thing in the Balkans, the American colonies pour onto Louisiana like a horde of locusts.

This seems troubling.

France didn't own Louisiana before, during, or after the ARW. Spain owned most of it.

France got it back as part of Napoleon's gains from Spain.
 
Where the fact that losing political control over the North American colonies did not actually translate to a great loss of economic benefits was a significant vindication of Adam Smith in his homeland. Did I forget to state this?

By your logic, Britain would have been better off without the captive market in India, because of Adam Smith. We know this isn't true. Why would you assume that Britain wouldn't benefit from a captive market in America as well?

How did Great Britain's political control of part of North America actually benefit Great Britain? The tax income that it provided to the British government was small; the economic benefit of relations with the United States was not vastly greater than it was after Great Britain lost political control thereof.

Could the 13 colonies have embargoed British trade, or gone to war with Britain, as the USA did in the Napoleonic Wars? Obviously not.

Both these things I have noted; and one could also note that Great Britain had to station soldiers in British America, and was dragged into war by the endless expansionism of the American colonists, which continued even when it was politically inconvenient for the government in London.

I know that there's a tendency of Britons to view the colonists as a bunch of freeloaders, but this doesn't square with reality. It was a colonial victory in the War of Austrian Succession (Louisburg) that kept the Low Countries out of French hands.

small, the British Empire's era of greatest strength came after the loss of British America, and indeed the loss of British America did not greatly harm it save for its pride, which was certainly very greatly battered.

This is a very strange argument. "Britain managed to prosper without America; QED, Britain with America would not have been significantly stronger."

Would it bring much of a boon to the exchequer in London, or to the exchequers of the colonists? Let me repeat that taxes on the whole of British America gained less for the British government than half a Caribbean island did for France. The idea that taxes on British America were high, or even moderate, does not stand up to the cold light of this fact.

You keep looking at the benefits of the colonies as solely a tax, and not the economic benefits (trade, a source of soldiers, etc.) This is why you're skewing the outcome.

Was there really? The American colonists were unhappy with paying for the British Army even when it needed paying for because it had just taken up lots of money conquering land for them, in a war they started. I doubt they would have been willing to send troops to fight wars for Great Britain in lands that were not their own.

Err. They did. Not just in Canada; colonial troops took part in the disastrous assault on Cartagena during the War of Austrian Succession, to give but one example. Or there were the colonial troops who returned to fight in the English Civil War.

Edit: It's funny how the French and Indian War (which also saw British troops deployed to Hanover, and subsidies to Prussia) is an American War. But nobody says "how come the Americans had to fight in the War of Austrian Succession?"
 
France didn't own Louisiana before, during, or after the ARW. Spain owned most of it.

France got it back as part of Napoleon's gains from Spain.

The Spanish Bourbons in this ATL are presumably still allies of the French Bourbons, right?
 
The Spanish Bourbons in this ATL are presumably still allies of the French Bourbons, right?

Probably, but at that point Louisiana would have ceased to France's problem since if they refuse to support the Americans they will presumably be writing off North America, since at this point stopping British domination of the continent will be nearly impossible. BNA is just too big, too populated, and too wealthy (relatively) for it to be stopped without major changes.
 
I dont think the british were that obsessed with territory,if anything losing america made them that desperate.

The north american continent could cover most of the needs of the home islands easily.

Shortening ones supply line makes sense after all,why haul resourses over the planet when you can have a simple two way system across the north atlantic.

While you're right of course, the wonders of resources both mineralogical and agricultural were not KNOWN to the British in the ARW. They behaved as if somehow everything west of the Appalachia Mountains was the Sahara Desert. Comes to "state of mind at the time".

The British lost a captive market, had to deploy troops along the borders of a great power, lost the source of major naval supplies, and lost control of North America. This is a pretty good deal, IMO.

Contemporary Britons certainly viewed it as a disaster.

Coming out of the 7YW, and frankly so many other wars, the concept for the British in the 18th century of "losing a war" was unfathomable. Or as we would say today: "Does Not Compute".

There is quite a massive gulf between benign neglect and Spanish-style resource extraction. Longer term, there was room for tax to go up, providing other reforms went with it, like the elimination of mercantilist policies in the navigation acts.

Would you mind expanding on this?

And, of course, the American south had yet to take off at the time of the ARW. While cotton was never as profitable as the Caribbean sugar trade, there was a heck of a lot more production of it that could bring in a huge boon to the British exchequer.

And the cotton gin was only a decade or so from being invented.

A North American base could also mean the British could penetrate Latin American markets a lot sooner.

For whatever they're worth.:(

And there's also the extra manpower for future wars.

I imagine that IF Britain plays its cards right you could see Britain having the use of sizable American volunteer armies to engage any threats in the Western Hemisphere, the Pacific, East Asia, or Europe. Mind, in the last case it would have to be something much more along the lines of World War One rather than more "Imperialist" conflicts like the Crimean War.

And forget draftees except in the most serious conflicts. "Conscripts for home, volunteers abroad" was a saying for many of the Dominions. If Canada OTL could have conscription problems in the World Wars, certainly a BNA would.:(:eek:
 
I agree that the loss of the colonies was a loss and it would have been better if they had kept the colonies, but the loss didn't hurt them as much as some estimate.

Winston Churchill *in his bombproof* in the Blitz would like a word with you. Actually, he'd like to strangle you.:mad::D

I ask you to look to the Caribbean and claim what was done in America to be exploitation. In fact before the 7YW the British pretty much left their American colonies alone.
It was what happened afterward 1763 that was the problem. When Rochambeau asked Lafayette "What is this war all about?", Lafayette returned: "After a hundred and fifty years of ignoring their colonies, the British turned around and tried to run them directly from Westminster." Let a child run wild his whole life, good luck trying to start rearing them properly starting on their 18th birthdays.:rolleyes:

I'm not sure what your point is here. The British also engaged in worse exploitation in the Caribbean, yes. That does not mean they did not exploit America.

They set up a mercantilist system in the American colonies where the aim was for the colonies to benefit the people of Great Britain, and the welfare of the people of America was an irrelevance. This was a similar approach they had been doing to Ireland for a long time. The only difference was they enforced it in Ireland, and distracted attention had meant they did not in North America.

The debate in the 1760s was between the Tory view that they should start enforcing mercantilism and capital extraction from America (with extra provisions to make sure it happened if necessary), and the Whig view that they should respect the de facto evolution that had taken place there and look at American colonists as Englishmen with English rights.

Which is why the Whigs of the ARW are exalted in British history while the Tories are dragged through the mud. Excepting the "ungrateful Yanks" crowd, of course.

There's no unified source. But the British maintained many forts throughout the region east of the Mississippi with garrisons of tens to a few hundred. And there were also some militia forts maintained by the British with a few hundred militiamen. In important military bases the amount of soldiers was on average around a thousand with sometimes more men. In any one place concentrations of troops rarely rose to a few thousand, which is why the movement of thousands of troops into Boston during the lead up to the ARW wasn't taken well too. Meanwhile in Canada post ARW and on the eve of the War of 1812 the garrison was stated to be 6,034 supported by native allies and Canadian militias. After the War of 1812 that Garrison was much higher for a time before dropping down to 4,000 sometime before the Fenian Raids after which the garrison was once again increased.

You DO understand the true reason for those troops being stationed in Boston, yes? So is it any wonder that the Colonials would resent paying what amounted to "protection money"?:confused: At least Canadians truly needed and WANTED the protection against a genuine threat. The threat of French naval raids against Boston was nonexistent post-1763.

Okay when you put it that way i can't really say it isn't exploitation. I mean I fully understand the mercantilist system and all, but its just that I personally have a higher standard for what I call exploitation.
"I swear to you that I will never live to see a single forge in America!"​
William Pitt the Elder
in a speech on the floor of the House​

Okay to prevent a French intervention you need to have the Spanish firmly refuse to support France in such an action. Without Spain's support France was not in a good position to oppose Britain, which is why Vergennes considered Spain's alliance indispensable in such a war. To do this have the British offer the return of Minorca to Carlos if he does not enter the war. This combined with Carlos presentiment against intervening on the Rebel side should prevent Spain from supporting a French intervention.

Carlos saw Minorca as chump change. He wanted Gibraltar, which the British would never give up, and he knew it. His actions went forward from this correct series of assessments. However dangerous the example of rebellious colonials, Carlos would NEVER have a better chance to get at the British than the ARW. For the cost of some five ships of the line (IIRC), Spain made out better than any other country in the ARW besides America itself. Better than America, when you factor in $$$

Both these things I have noted; and one could also note that Great Britain had to station soldiers in British America, and was dragged into war by the endless expansionism of the American colonists, which continued even when it was politically inconvenient for the government in London.

God DAMN those wretched Colonials!:mad: One might actually call them...Imperialists!:p Who did they think they were? Sons of Perfidious Albion?:rolleyes::p:D

Ruling space on a map is not the same thing as a concrete benefit for the nation that does so. It all depends on what is gained from it; and from British America, propaganda aside, Great Britain gained little.

History doesn't stop at 1900 whatever the Forum.

The American national myth makes it pleasant to imagine that the British Empire was this vast colossus deriving huge amounts of income from British America (cruelly robbed from the hands of the virtuous and oppressed freedom-loving people, naturally) and the loss of British America was some crippling blow to this evil hegemony. The practical facts are that the tax income derived from British America by the central government was rather small, the British Empire's era of greatest strength came after the loss of British America, and indeed the loss of British America did not greatly harm it save for its pride, which was certainly very greatly battered.

And since we don't live in an ATL where the Texas oilfields, California's gold fields, Nevada's silver fields, and the amber waves of grain of the Midwest don't exist for Britain, we are free to obsess on the tiny amount of tax revenue gained in the 18th century. bottom line, bottom line, bottom line:rolleyes:

Would the British Empire, without the vindication of Adam Smith and blow dealt to mercantilism by the continued economic benefits of trade with the United States after the loss of political control there, have turned against mercantilism and been willing to take such a step at all, especially with a glorious Tory victory in crushing a revolution? One cannot remove such a huge British political event as the humiliation of the Tories and gain for the Whigs in the American Revolution without rather large effects on British politics.

Agreed. Tory triumphalism could potentially lead to a very dark period in British parliamentary history, with all kinds of negative butterflies.:(

They penetrated Latin American markets thanks to the collapse of Spain, thanks to the French Revolution. As long as the Spanish Empire is alive, that's not going to happen.

The Spanish Empire was on a downward slide for a long time. If any European power was going to lose their empire economically, it was going to be Spain.
 
Last edited:
By your logic, Britain would have been better off without the captive market in India, because of Adam Smith. We know this isn't true. Why would you assume that Britain wouldn't benefit from a captive market in America as well?

No assumption is necessary. Did you read what I said?

I did not say "Losing British America wasn't a significant blow to Great Britain, because of the ideas of Adam Smith."

Let me be try to be clearer. "People at the time observed that Great Britain didn't seem to be significantly worse-off economically with its relation with the United States, even after the loss of British America; and this served, in Great Britain at the time, as a vindication of the ideas of Adam Smith because it was in line with his arguments." The mention of Smith was a side-note, and the chain of causation that I am suggesting is the opposite way round to the one you seem to think I am suggesting.

Is that clear?

Could the 13 colonies have embargoed British trade, or gone to war with Britain, as the USA did in the Napoleonic Wars? Obviously not.

The Embargo Act and the War of 1812 were inconvenient for Great Britain (though the former hurt and offended Americans more than it did Britons). I didn't say the American Revolution represented zero loss for Great Britain; indeed, I explicitly said it wasn't zero loss but it was a rather lesser loss than a lot of people estimate.

Compared to the Napoleonic Wars, which were far more important from the British perspective for reasons that certainly ought to be blindingly obvious, the British government scarcely even paid attention to the War of 1812. Incidentally, the same thing can be said of the British people as a whole; just ask today and most of us haven't even heard of it.

I know that there's a tendency of Britons to view the colonists as a bunch of freeloaders, but this doesn't square with reality. It was a colonial victory in the War of Austrian Succession (Louisburg) that kept the Low Countries out of French hands.

Things changed over time. Earlier in their history the American colonists viewed themselves as British and weren't so unhappy, therefore, about their money and their men supporting Great Britain. Later in their history this plainly wasn't true. I didn't think that, even in the United States, the idea that the colonists started off viewing themselves as English and later developed a separate national identity of their own was a controversial one. Is it?

And if you're going to deny that the major colonial war close to the American Revolution was started by American expansionism and the main (though not only) British victory therein was the victory of American expansionism, I shall be quite surprised. The same applies if you're going to deny that the conduct of this war, which was focused in Great Britain's colonial ventures and fought for the benefit thereof, was a total disaster for Great Britain's international position in Europe, where, of course, Great Britain actually is.

As for 'freeloaders', no, it's more sophisticated than that. The Americans didn't want their money or men supporting the endeavours of Great Britain because they didn't regard themselves as part of Great Britain. In the same way, most modern Britons don't like the idea of money going from Great Britain to the EU (even if it's a trifling amount compared to other expenditures) because they don't regard themselves as Europeans; even most Europhiles only say that leaving the EU would be bad for the economy, not that it would be bad for the sake of the ideal of European integration. And many Scots have the same opinion of the United Kingdom. It's not "them damn lazy Yanks", it's that people in State X who would rather be in a different State Y (whether or not State Y yet exists) are obviously going to be reluctant to make sacrifices for the sake of State X.

This is a very strange argument. "Britain managed to prosper without America; QED, Britain with America would not have been significantly stronger."

Now, in contrast, let's see what I actually said:

me said:
The practical facts are that the tax income derived from British America by the central government was rather small, the British Empire's era of greatest strength came after the loss of British America, and indeed the loss of British America did not greatly harm it save for its pride, which was certainly very greatly battered.
It takes quite the verbal contortionist to twist that into:

not me said:
the British Empire's era of greatest strength came after the loss of British America AND THEREFORE the loss of British America did not greatly harm it save for its pride, which was certainly very greatly battered.

You keep looking at the benefits of the colonies as solely a tax, and not the economic benefits (trade, a source of soldiers, etc.) This is why you're skewing the outcome.

They were a source of soldiers before, yes, but they weren't afterwards. And as I would have thought American history would emphasise, taxation matters.

_____________

God DAMN those wretched Colonials!:mad: One might actually call them...Imperialist!:p Who did they think they were? Sons of Perfidious Albion?:rolleyes::p:D

Of course they were being expansionist, and of course expansionism was certainly not unknown to Great Britain itself. After all, that's why the colonies existed in the first place. The point isn't to establish British moral superiority over those evil Americans, muahahahaha. The point is that while it may sometimes be useful to spend lots of money and lives on one's own imperialist ventures, it seldom is to do so for someone else's.

History doesn't stop at 1900 whatever the Forum.

And since we don't live in an ATL where the Texas oilfields, California's gold fields, Nevada's silver fields, and the amber waves of grain of the Midwest don't exist for Britain, we are free to obsess on the tiny amount of tax revenue gained in the 18th century. bottom line, bottom line, bottom line:rolleyes:

…My precious?

But more seriously: Control of strategic resources is useful; but taxation does matter because we have to consider who would actually have benefited from those resources if the colonial system continued. (That is, if the OTL colonial system continued; if it was replaced after the American Revolution with something that removed autonomy and dramatically hiked up taxes, things would of course be different.) Would the British benefit? Somewhat. Not zero, but not hugely. But most of the benefit would go to the Americans. The Caribbean island comparison—half an island under France, to a vast continental-scale realm under Great Britain, and it's the former that generates more revenue—makes it clear just how very low the taxes on the Americans really were. Therefore, most of the money the Americans made would have gone to the Americans. Of course, that's perfectly reasonable from a moral standpoint, but is of limited use to the British. Not no use, but limited use.

My contention is not that the American Revolution was no loss to Great Britain, but that it was a much lesser loss than a lot of people say; and that it was certainly not enough of a gain to the Kingdom of France (by virtue of the loss to Great Britain) to justify the tremendous cost that it reaped upon the Kingdom of France, namely the destruction thereof.

Agreed. Tory triumphalism could potentially lead to a very dark period in British parliamentary history, with all kinds of negative butterflies.:(

Indeed. Certainly Great Britain lost the war—no-one with a brain would deny that—but I would go so far as to say that it's a war it was in Great Britain's long-term interests to lose. Not only because it shocked the British out of their complacency and arrogance of the post-Seven Years' War era (well, as much as Britons can ever be made less arrogant, anyway :p), it's also the case that holding on longer wouldn't have been of much benefit and would have been expensive in money and lives. It's like the French in Algeria; you'll be hard-pressed today to find someone who thinks that France would be better-off if it hadn't lost Algeria when it did, because if that had happened then France would just have spent more money and more lives trying to hold on, but still would have lost it anyway.

What turned out to happen was for the better for all concerned. The Americans were now independent and no longer had to contribute to a nation to which they plainly didn't want to contribute; and the Britons no longer had to contribute to the funding of wars started by the Americans that benefited the Americans, and didn't have to spend the money and lives it would have taken to hold down the Americans if they had won, which would surely have been considerable and would probably not have succeeded in holding down the Americans indefinitely anyway.

The Spanish Empire was on a downward slide for a long time. If any European power was going to lose their empire economically, it was going to be Spain.

I don't disagree. But the assertion was that the British would have penetrated Latin American markets earlier if they'd won the American Revolution. Perhaps the Spanish Empire's collapse was indeed inevitable, but the Revolutionary French occupation of Spain was certainly a big push down that ramp. As a result thereof, it is my contention that without the French Revolution the British economic penetration of Spanish/post-Spanish America would have started later, not earlier.
 
I agree on most points with Faeelin and Usertron.

But most of all, the idea that Britain could some way have kept control of the 13 colonies is just a fantasy.

The 13 colonies' population was growing so fast that it needed just 2 generations to become more populated than Britain.

The distance was too far. You can't have a united representative political system beteween territories separated by 6.000 kilometers of ocean whose crossing lasts 8 weeks.

Britain in this age was ruled by a small oligarchy made of the alliance of high nobles, bankers, financiers and big merchants. They did not want to lose control. They would rather lose far away territories than lose control.
They also had a high sens of interests, costs and profitability.

The american colonies had cost a lot and did not bring in many taxes that Britain needed. So they wanted the colonies to pay more. If one way or another the colonies could avoid paying, then it was not profitable for Britain to keep facing the costs of keep defending american colonies and american settlers hunger for new lands or the costs for retaining control of these colonies.

Britain was mercantilist. It wanted to keep forbidding the colonies quite many profitable economic activities in order to retain the monopoly for itself. This was just unacceptable for such a populous and vast land as that of the 13 colonies.
 
The practical facts are that the tax income derived from British America by the central government was rather small, the British Empire's era of greatest strength came after the loss of British America, and indeed the loss of British America did not greatly harm it save for its pride, which was certainly very greatly battered.

The small tax revenue was because of benign neglect. The American colonies had vast potential for more tax, not just from tax levels going up (which they did substantially after independence), but also from demographic and economic expansion, notably the money made from plantation agriculture in the American south, which was only nascent in the 1760s.

Would the British Empire, without the vindication of Adam Smith and blow dealt to mercantilism by the continued economic benefits of trade with the United States after the loss of political control there, have turned against mercantilism and been willing to take such a step at all, especially with a glorious Tory victory in crushing a revolution? One cannot remove such a huge British political event as the humiliation of the Tories and gain for the Whigs in the American Revolution without rather large effects on British politics.

Well, we'd have to spell out the exact scenario, but how long can you ride out a victory for? The British public didn't exactly have the Blitz spirit over the war in America, and only started rallying round the government once the French got involved. Given that Churchill got voted out of office straight after WW2, I can't exactly see the North government having more than a few years support before collapsing. The Whigs were in the ascendancy due to natural political evolution, and Toryism, associated with reaction and Jacobitism, was dying out. Before North, even a very politically active George III struggled to keep Tories in power and had to appoint Whig after Whig as PM, although he frustrated them behind the scenes. After North went, they never came back to power again: the next 'Tory' government was just the more conservative Whigs, and had a completely different philosophy to things.


Would it bring much of a boon to the exchequer in London, or to the exchequers of the colonists? Let me repeat that taxes on the whole of British America gained less for the British government than half a Caribbean island did for France. The idea that taxes on British America were high, or even moderate, does not stand up to the cold light of this fact.

I'm not arguing that tax revenues were significant in the 1760s. I'm arguing that they would have been substantial after plantation agriculture took off and taxes were raised. The fact that plantation agriculture in the Caribbean made shed loads of money for France, and that taxes in British America were extremely low and had plenty of room to rise, back up my position, not yours. I could certainly see British exchequer revenue being 10-20% higher (relative to our timeline) by 1800, and climb dramatically after that. Then, of course, there would be the addition of troops and ships paid for directly by colonial governments

As for trade, much of it did continue, yes. But Smith's ideas also point out the economic loss that happen through tariff barriers, for which the US added substantial ones to encourage their own manufacturing against British trade.

They penetrated Latin American markets thanks to the collapse of Spain, thanks to the French Revolution. As long as the Spanish Empire is alive, that's not going to happen.

Except the Spanish Empire was widely considered to be in decline, and before the ARW, the British were deliberately targeting it, planning to annex parts, with the first attempted attacks in the 7YW. Seven million American subjects right nearby by 1810 is going to be a major base of operations for that. As it will for the remaining French and Spanish Caribbean islands - you know, the insanely profitable ones you mentioned earlier.

Was there really? The American colonists were unhappy with paying for the British Army even when it needed paying for because it had just taken up lots of money conquering land for them, in a war they started. I doubt they would have been willing to send troops to fight wars for Great Britain in lands that were not their own.

No, they were unhappy to pay taxes (that they had no input on), in order to support British regiments (that they couldn't join) to be stationed on their own frontier (to contain their own expansion) and which had no accountability to the local population. Do you know how soldiers act when you make them an occupying force over a population that has no recompense? The idea that land was conquered "for them" is, frankly, complete bollocks, seeing that colonial militias lost a lot of lives to conquer the place, and it was subsequently given over to French colonialists - not just where the French lived, but right down into the Ohio country, and their settlement was deliberately restricted by royal fiat.

The contrast between that and contributing troops to expand British influence into Latin America, where New York, Maryland and Boston merchants can make huge fortunes through trade, is a pretty major one. Just look at how British Indian administrators were happy to send troops to China. Then, of course, we have the examples of Canada, Australia and New Zealand during the two world wars.
 
Last edited:
The small tax revenue was because of benign neglect. The American colonies had vast potential for more tax, not just from tax levels going up (which they did substantially after independence), but also from demographic and economic expansion, notably the money made from plantation agriculture in the American south, which was only nascent in the 1760s.

It's not unknown that tax levels went up dramatically after independence. Nor does it contradict me. Americans were far more willing to pay tax to a government they considered their own than to a government they considered a foreign occupying power.

Well, we'd have to spell out the exact scenario, but how long can you ride out a victory for? The British public didn't exactly have the Blitz spirit over the war in America, and only started rallying round the government once the French got involved. Given that Churchill got voted out of office straight after WW2, I can't exactly see the North government having more than a few years support before collapsing. The Whigs were in the ascendancy due to natural political evolution, and Toryism, associated with reaction and Jacobitism, was dying out. Before North, even a very politically active George III struggled to keep Tories in power and had to appoint Whig after Whig as PM, although he frustrated them behind the scenes. After North went, they never came back to power again: the next 'Tory' government was just the more conservative Whigs, and had a completely different philosophy to things.

But would the Whigs have been in as strong a position without the Tories utterly humiliating themselves by their failures in North America?

I'm not arguing that tax revenues were significant in the 1760s.

I'm glad of that.

I'm arguing that they would have been substantial after plantation agriculture took off and taxes were raised. The fact that plantation agriculture in the Caribbean made shed loads of money for France, and that taxes in British America were extremely low and had plenty of room to rise, back up my position, not yours. I could certainly see British exchequer revenue being 10-20% higher (relative to our timeline) by 1800, and climb dramatically after that.

I presume you mean due to American population increase, rather than increase in the rates of taxation. The latter would, let's say, not go down well among the Americans.

Then, of course, there would be the addition of troops and ships paid for directly by colonial governments

Would there? After a failed American Revolutionary War, would many Americans be happy and willing to sign up to British-controlled militias? Would there be colonial governments with popular support among the American people? Or would there be a British-imposed order bitterly resented and despised by the Americans?

If the British win the American Revolutionary War, this does not mean that the Americans no longer want independence. After all, the democratically elected colonial assemblies have just rebelled against the British government; it's unlikely that the British government would be willing to let them keep what power they had, let alone gain any more. They would probably be abolished, which would, of course, increase American discontent.

As for trade, much of it did continue, yes. But Smith's ideas also point out the economic loss that happen through tariff barriers, for which the US added substantial ones to encourage their own manufacturing against British trade.

Yes. But was that enough of a difference to justify the huge cost that the Kingdom of France incurred supporting the American Revolutionary War?

I will repeat that my argument is not that the American Revolutionary War was no loss to Great Britain and thus no victory for the Kingdom of France. That wouldn't be true. My argument is that the American Revolutionary War wasn't enough of a loss to Great Britain, and thus victory for the Kingdom of France, to justify the tremendous negative consequences of the war for the Kingdom of France: the utter destruction of the Kingdom of France. Therefore it was a bad decision for Louis XVI and his government to support the Americans.

Except the Spanish Empire was widely considered to be in decline, and before the ARW, the British were deliberately targeting it, planning to annex parts, with the first attempted attacks in the 7YW. Seven million American subjects right nearby by 1810 is going to be a major base of operations for that. As it will for the remaining French and Spanish Caribbean islands - you know, the insanely profitable ones you mentioned earlier.

It certainly makes sense that the British would try to go after the Caribbean for exactly that reason. But would the British really manage to beat the French and Spanish in this scenario? After all, if there were a war between Great Britain and France after a failed American Revolutionary War, surely France would successfully stir up the Americans to rebel again, this time with whole-hearted French support. Whoever won this war, by that stage the American people wanted independence, as loyalist commanders often found in the OTL American Revolutionary War when the predicted armies of loyalists due to popular support never actually materialised. It wouldn't be a case of the Americans happily supporting the British against the powers that were most capable of helping them to win their independence from the British.

No, they were unhappy to pay taxes (that they had no input on), in order to support British regiments (that they couldn't join) to be stationed on their own frontier (to contain their own expansion) and which had no accountability to the local population. Do you know how soldiers act when you make them an occupying force over a population that has no recompense? The idea that land was conquered "for them" is, frankly, complete bollocks, seeing that colonial militias lost a lot of lives to conquer the place, and it was subsequently given over to French colonialists - not just where the French lived, but right down into the Ohio country, and their settlement was deliberately restricted by royal fiat.

The war started because of the people of what was then British America expanding westward into territory that wasn't already controlled by Great Britain. The main result of the war was the conquest of much of that territory. The power of France and its ability to fight, in alliance with Native Americans, against the British Americans was the main threat to British America. This threat was broken by the war. Yes, Great Britain then denied the Americans the opportunity to expand into lots of that land (not exactly unreasonable given the vast amount of land per head that they had already), but it is nonetheless true that Great Britain fought an absolutely huge war that the Americans started which broke the main threat to the Americans, then wanted money back for it. The Americans objected to this because they didn't want to send money to Great Britain. It wasn't a refusal to pay any taxes regardless of their source; as you yourself noted, taxes rose significantly after independence; the Americans were quite happy to pay taxes to a government as long as it was a government they considered theirs, i.e. the US government and not the British government.

I don't believe there is anyone on this thread who claims that the behaviour of the British Army in what was then British America was pleasant and respectful. This is not, however, my contention.

The contrast between that and contributing troops to expand British influence into Latin America, where New York, Maryland and Boston merchants can make huge fortunes through trade, is a pretty major one. Just look at how British Indian administrators were happy to send troops to China. Then, of course, we have the examples of Canada, Australia and New Zealand during the two world wars.

The key difference is that British India was a completely British-dominated order in a place whose people were, at the time, subdued. British India wasn't dominated by autonomous colonial assemblies elected by the Indians.
 
Top