WI : France had North American and Indian Colonies during the Revolution

Lets say Wolfe is killed during the seige of quebec, and the french manage to hold on to quebec during the war. Somehow the french keep quebec in the designated treaties that end the war.

France was in terrible financial straits at that time, but a smart king could have perhaps delayed a "french revolution" by reforming france. However lets just assume that that doesnt happen and most of the events that caused the French revolution happen (crop failures, famine, food riots...). If through the course of events, a jacoban dictatorship rises in France,(The Terror 1793-1795), I can see Louis XVI along with his family escaping to quebec and establishing a "govt in exile."

Wishing you well, his majesty,
The Scandinavian Emperor

From the perspective of the 18th century French Royal Family, Canada would be the ends of the Earth. If they manage to escape France, they'll want to be put up in luxury by a friendly power, most likely Spain.
 
Have you often seen moderation in a revolution ? Moderation happens when a revolution is finished. And for the few ones who wanted to give the American Representation, they were not enough of them to form a majority in the government.

That's a non sequitur, because if moderation is maintained you don't get to a revolution.

This is not representation, and they will still be taxed afterwards (stamp tax, tea tax ...)

No it's not representation, but it's a step in the right direction, which is all the colonists were looking for: a sign the British were willing to hear them out. Further reforms could then follow later. They were patriotic Englishmen and didn't like the idea of tearing themselves asunder from the motherland, but felt they had been forced into it.

No, they hated the monarchy and aristocracy. And that was the attitude of George III OTL, an attitude that would not change. For a great majority of the American, George III was a tyrant from the moment he issued the Proclamation of Rebellion.

In the decades following the ARW, the most influential state was Virginia. You know, that bunch of wealthy men setting themselves up as lords of their estates. Must have HATED aristocracy. The same was true of most of the south. Besides, the aristocrats were a small component of the British parliament, which was mostly dominated by wealthy merchants, who were very similar in background to the New Englanders with grievances. Exceptions like Jefferson aside, they did not hate monarchy per se, but the idea of absolutist monarchy. Just like the British parliament. Also remember, it was the more radical ones that came to the fore and the moderates were marginalised, because of the way the politics developed. If signs of compromise had come about, the reverse would have happened.

Pretty large ? The population ratio is 1 to 20, it's like Albania being a threat to Italy ! And yes the navy was powerful but far less than the English or the Spanish one. And the spanish were no threat to anyone as their performance in the 7 years war proved.

New England couldn't be sure the South would come to its protection, and in this circumstance there would also be the worry they might have to fight the British and the French at the same time. The Spanish may not have been a big threat to the British, but they would be to a small fledgling nation without a navy - especially if allied to the French.

Comparing 1837 with 1775, when some little events, like the American War of Independance, the French Revolution happened between, when so small political advance were made, like the abolition of Slavery, is very relevant to the debate.

You're acting like no political advances happened in England before 1775. Believe me, the idea of gradual political reform was well enshrined by this point.

Or not. The british parliament will never allow representation or even a middle ground. OTL isn't like the American revolted at the first tax the parliament voted. It was a succession of taxes, combined with the sentiment of betrayal due to the interdiction to settle behind the proclamation line, the mandatory housing of British soldiers, the lack of representation, the contempt shown by the British parliament (virtual representation), the mercantilist policy, the intolerable acts and Republicanism. I don't see all these being changed to satisfy the american populace.

You seem to be stating this as a position of faith rather than reason. Why don't you read a speech by William Pitt, probably the biggest name politician at the time:

http://www.bartleby.com/268/3/23.html

The Pittites were strongly sympathetic to the colonies and the Rockinghamites even more so. All it needed was for Franklin to get more of a hearing in London and something could have been struck. Secondly, why on Earth would the British issue a proclamation line in this situation? Why would the Americans be so upset about British troops being stationed for their own defence against the French - the problem in OTL is that they were put there to stop Western settlement. And being forced to pay for something against their own interests. They would have a lot less issue paying for something they thought was still needed.

The british ? You're talking about the small bunch of aristocrats and merchants who could participate in politics ?

If you don't think the British parliament saw themselves as upholding a strong spirit of liberty against continental absolutism, then you're really showing your ignorance of the politics of this period.

It would cause uproar as there was no true representation in Britain too (for example there was no MP from manchester).

It would likely encourage demands for further reforms at home, yes. I don't see it causing Gordon Riots.

And for your second point, Britain wouldn't have lost a major war fifteen years before.

Which war are you talking about here?

In my scenario, they wouldn't be able to keep the Ohio country. And in the previous war, they didn't participated as much as in the 7 years war (wich begun earlier in America), lands were won anyway, and the issue of western settlement wasn't as strong as after in 1775. And in otl, they were at the door of Québec city IIRC, without the help of anyone and with the brits against them, so i think they could take it.

I agree they'd be pissed. But they would get over it. Under the circumstances where France is strong enough to get Canada AND Ohio back, the colonists would accept their side had been badly beaten and be lessed pissed about it. (And would also be a lot more scared of the French!) As mentioned, western settlement wouldn't still be restricted. And they wouldn't be able to take Quebec if there was a danger of fighting both the British and the French at the same time.
 
Top