Best POD after 1754 for No Independent US?

Lately, I've been researching a great deal of US history for an ongoing project that requires the 13 American colonies to never succeed in rebelling from Great Britain. While I've found some very good places to alter history to totally change things, I've had a hard time finding a single place that could give the desired effect. So, I figured I'd pose the question here. Preferably the POD would be before 1776, so that there is no Revolution as we know it at all.

I'm also HEAVILY relying on plausibility and research, so it can't be as simple as "no stamp tax". Thanks, all. :)
 
Lately, I've been researching a great deal of US history for an ongoing project that requires the 13 American colonies to never succeed in rebelling from Great Britain. While I've found some very good places to alter history to totally change things, I've had a hard time finding a single place that could give the desired effect. So, I figured I'd pose the question here. Preferably the POD would be before 1776, so that there is no Revolution as we know it at all.

I'm also HEAVILY relying on plausibility and research, so it can't be as simple as "no stamp tax". Thanks, all. :)

Hi there, ToixStory. While my expertise on pre-1775 PODs in North America is a tad limited I can give you some pointers as to where to go.

1. If we want to play with the scenario a bit, we can start *in* 1754, and look at the Albany Plan-and/or delay it a few years.

2. George Washington, the first President, played a not-insignificant role in the French and Indian War; maybe he dies at Jumonville Glen?

3. Killing off George III at some point prior to 1774-75 might be an interesting POD to work with.

4. Nixing the Royal Proclamation of 1763 might also be a start, even if it played very little of a role in OTL's Revolution, if at all.

These are just a few, though, and I'm sure others can probably come up with ideas that are equally interesting. :cool:
 
Hi there, ToixStory. While my expertise on pre-1775 PODs in North America is a tad limited I can give you some pointers as to where to go.


3. Killing off George III at some point prior to 1774-75 might be an interesting POD to work with.

It's Parliament who made the laws, not King George.
 
Hi there, ToixStory. While my expertise on pre-1775 PODs in North America is a tad limited I can give you some pointers as to where to go.

1. If we want to play with the scenario a bit, we can start *in* 1754, and look at the Albany Plan-and/or delay it a few years.

2. George Washington, the first President, played a not-insignificant role in the French and Indian War; maybe he dies at Jumonville Glen?

3. Killing off George III at some point prior to 1774-75 might be an interesting POD to work with.

4. Nixing the Royal Proclamation of 1763 might also be a start, even if it played very little of a role in OTL's Revolution, if at all.

These are just a few, though, and I'm sure others can probably come up with ideas that are equally interesting. :cool:
I've been reading like six books on the pre-Revolutionary War period, so I'm not exactly coming into this with no knowledge. It's not as much of a problem of knowing the history as find one little PoD that can change everything.

I think of your ideas killing off King George III at some point (probably before 1774, though) would be the most likely to get great change. Though it was Parliament that made everything possible, the King still had great affect on the various ministries in the British Government, and thus a shakeup could have occurred.

The other ideas, while they could have effects, have the problem of not really able to go against the overall feelings that were prevalent in the era. George Washington helped make America what it is in OTL, but he was fairly replaceable. The Albany Plan never had any real power or significant backing so it's unlikely that changing it much would affect anything, and the problem with the Royal Proclamation of 1763 is that it had so much backing that getting it to be changed would likely require a large Parliamentary shakeup.

Still, thanks for replying, and I may explore the dead King George III angle, especially if he dies shortly after the end of the Seven Years War...
 
it's not impossible to stop the rebellion, but it would require the Brits to give up on everything. The rebels at first weren't looking so much for independence, but to bring back the status quo... lax colonial tax collecting, blindness when it came to stopping smuggling, and no new taxes imposed. Plus, the UK will have to answer the lingering question of westward expansion. With all that, there's not a lot of sentiment for rebellion.
 
2. George Washington, the first President, played a not-insignificant role in the French and Indian War; maybe he dies at Jumonville Glen?

Not enough. Washington's greatness has been exaggerated by American nationalists who wished to paint him in a highly favourable light. If he dies, another general (probably worse) fills his void and wins the ARW.
 
What's the gain in that?

The only reason Canada was so large was because to serve as a counter against the U.S.A.
Not to mention that, in 1776, most of the colonies had little to no economic contact with each other, but rather more with the mother country and other nations. It's one reason that, in this scenario, the plan is basically have each colony a little dominion under a loose system together, which makes them easy to unite or split apart at Britain's wishes.
 
Virginia Governor Robert Dinwiddie had a far larger role than Washington in starting the French and Indian War. It's too simplistic to say Dinwiddie caused the war - the ultimate cause was a long running dispute between France and Britain over the border location between their colonies - but Dinwiddie's actions started the war.

An untimely demise of Dinwiddie alters the F&I war. perhaps the dissent muddles on for a few more decades, or a more peaceful resolution is found (I've read that neither France or Britain were particularly eager to have a full blown war). Avoid the F&I war, the AR is completely altered. Britain doesn't incur such massive debt and try taxing the colonies. British treatment of the colonials during and after the war hastened the ill feelings that caused the revolution.

I don't think you can stave off the revolution forever - the colonies were growing too much to stay forever in the existing master/servant relationship - but sans the F&I war, it can easily be delayed for decades to a point where an entirely different outcome is feasible.

Many folk have opined that IF New France were still french, the colonists would have quaked in fear and begged to stay under British protection. I don't agree. the population disparity made it highly unlikely the French would invade an independent US.

a large part of French support of the colonials was a desire to regain the world supremacy they lost to Britain during the 7 yrs war. would they have been so supportive if they had a colony of their own that they didn't want to give any independent ideas to? Would the Spanish be so supportive if they weren't looking to regain Florida? No French/Spanish support means an entirely different conduct of the war by both sides. IMO, the only hope of an American victory is a long drawn out affair that finally saps the will of Britain to stay in it, but without support, I don't think they can carry the day against the loyalists. F/S will give minimal support (never pass up an opportunity to harass an enemy), but that support won't be enough to keep the revolutionaries going.

At a bare minimum, Burgoyne sallied forth from Canada to put down the revolution. If there's no British Canada, Burgoyne can't sally forth from there and doesn't get trapped in Saratoga, where his loss gave the colonials their first major victory and enthused France to back them.
 
Disaster at Leuthen leaves Prussia and Britain with a painful loss in the OTL seven years war, among others forcing Britain to acknowledge the French claim on Ohio valley, leading to both Britain and the colonies are more willing to compromise, and freezing the air between the parlament and George III as he abandoned quite a few British claims with the intention of saving Hanover from getting eaten. This all leads to a much reduced strength of the revolt (its no fun not having the redcoats help defending the borders to New France and Mississippi, hence the Quartering Act being less of a sour lemon), which end up being beaten down by royalists. Futhermore the Boston Tea party was not quite as succesful, and the royalist papers succeded in painting the Sons of Liberty as a treasonous pro-French plot, attempting to distract Britain from defending against a forthcomming French invasion.
 
Last edited:

B-29_Bomber

Banned
Frankly you don't even need to butterfly OTL's war. There were so many times when the War could have been won for the British especially early on.
 
in the late 60's, and for the foreseeable future, the only border that needs protection is in northern NY. there is NO appreciable French population in the Ohio valley and south. the forts the french built in western Pennsylvania were to keep the British out. the french aren't mounting an invasion from anywhere but from Montreal and that's a tough go to really get anywhere.

the notion of a french invasion fear makes no sense at all. the bulk of the colonies had no threat at all. Now, the colonies might desire Britain's help in expanding - they're not getting into the ohio valley without invading French territory (or what France believed to be their territory, contested by Britain). that's a completely different story. the colonies hadn't even expanded to the borders set by france. France set the Ohio valley forts to pretty much the limits they sought to claim. they weren't expanding further. realistically, the colonies don't need protection. they were under no threat.
 
Hi there, ToixStory. While my expertise on pre-1775 PODs in North America is a tad limited I can give you some pointers as to where to go.

1. If we want to play with the scenario a bit, we can start *in* 1754, and look at the Albany Plan-and/or delay it a few years.

2. George Washington, the first President, played a not-insignificant role in the French and Indian War; maybe he dies at Jumonville Glen?

3. Killing off George III at some point prior to 1774-75 might be an interesting POD to work with.

4. Nixing the Royal Proclamation of 1763 might also be a start, even if it played very little of a role in OTL's Revolution, if at all.

These are just a few, though, and I'm sure others can probably come up with ideas that are equally interesting. :cool:

You could kill off Charles Townshend. He was far from the only one with the idea, but he as a cabinet member was solely responsible for levying taxes on the colonies...twice. No Stamp Act means no Stamp Act Crisis, which was the first major issue to unite the colonies against Britain.

Then again tensions were inevitably rising between Great Britain and the colonies, especially on trade/smuggling matters; I'm not sure that it wouldn't blow up eventually. No Stamp Act Crisis would just be kicking the can down the road. Ultimately you'd need somebody to decide that the colonies becoming a semi-independent dominion-like state was tolerable, (as well as somebody driving it on the American side) and I don't know if that would even possible as far back as the 18th century. Mercantalism would most definitely need to have fallen out of favor for this to happen.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
in the late 60's, and for the foreseeable future, the only border that needs protection is in northern NY. there is NO appreciable French population in the Ohio valley and south. the forts the french built in western Pennsylvania were to keep the British out. the french aren't mounting an invasion from anywhere but from Montreal and that's a tough go to really get anywhere.

the notion of a french invasion fear makes no sense at all. the bulk of the colonies had no threat at all. Now, the colonies might desire Britain's help in expanding - they're not getting into the ohio valley without invading French territory (or what France believed to be their territory, contested by Britain). that's a completely different story. the colonies hadn't even expanded to the borders set by france. France set the Ohio valley forts to pretty much the limits they sought to claim. they weren't expanding further. realistically, the colonies don't need protection. they were under no threat.

A perceived threat is not the same as a real threat.
 

jahenders

Banned
No necessarily, though they would have to yield on a few points (stamps, sugar, etc). With less overall angst and the avoidance of a few flash points, momentum for revolution might never get going.

Even if it can't forestall revolution forever, if Britain can delay it for 4 or 5 years, it could:
- Divert some of the rabble rousers to other actions
- Be in a better place such that it's less likely that the French would assist, or assist enough
- Have opportunity to further strengthen/expand Canada

it's not impossible to stop the rebellion, but it would require the Brits to give up on everything. The rebels at first weren't looking so much for independence, but to bring back the status quo... lax colonial tax collecting, blindness when it came to stopping smuggling, and no new taxes imposed. Plus, the UK will have to answer the lingering question of westward expansion. With all that, there's not a lot of sentiment for rebellion.
 
I don't think you could stave it off forever but you could probably delay it a bit.

1) Have some colonial representation in parliament. It doesn't have to be population based but maybe on or two MPs per colony.

2) Maybe grant a few knighthoods to prominent Americans after the F&I war, most likely at least some of them and fairly likely most of them would remain loyalist to keep their knighthoods.

3) Have the taxes be payable in something other than gold and silver as it was the drain of specie that helped cause the economic problems that helped cause the revolution. Maybe make the taxes payable in oak, iron, tobacco or cotton backed currency.
 
Top