A radically different American Revolution?

matashowski · Nov 18, 2012

I've always wondered what the world would be like if Britain had treated America differently. I believe that they could have kept everything across the Atlantic by treating them better. So what I'm wondering is, say that the Revolution is butterflied away. They are still pushed to the pacific, but without the same extermination of Native culture. Now, this idea just popped into my head so i dont have any details fleshed out. The status of slavery, so on. But for argument's sake, say we have the same overseas British Empire (except with an radically different Australia, colonized by the French and Dutch). Now, two questions. One, would the United States (or smaller regional sections) eventually succeed anyway, or would they always see themselves as "British".

And number two: Do you all think an avoided American revolution would dramatically butterfly away the next two hundred years? I mean, i'm sure it would dramatically. But would we see a serious Revolutions like otl? Or could it be avoided. Would 2012, the enter New world just be extensions (literally) of the old? Such as, The United Kingdom including the US and Canada (and a swath of Africa, perhaps India), France having Haiti and the Sahara (or at least Algeria), Spain retaining most of New Spain, etc.

phx1138 · Nov 23, 2012

matashowski said:
I've always wondered what the world would be like if Britain had treated America differently. I believe that they could have kept everything across the Atlantic by treating them better. So what I'm wondering is, say that the Revolution is butterflied away. They are still pushed to the pacific, but without the same extermination of Native culture. Now, this idea just popped into my head so i dont have any details fleshed out. The status of slavery, so on. But for argument's sake, say we have the same overseas British Empire (except with an radically different Australia, colonized by the French and Dutch). Now, two questions. One, would the United States (or smaller regional sections) eventually succeed anyway, or would they always see themselves as "British".

And number two: Do you all think an avoided American revolution would dramatically butterfly away the next two hundred years? I mean, i'm sure it would dramatically. But would we see a serious Revolutions like otl? Or could it be avoided. Would 2012, the enter New world just be extensions (literally) of the old? Such as, The United Kingdom including the US and Canada (and a swath of Africa, perhaps India), France having Haiti and the Sahara (or at least Algeria), Spain retaining most of New Spain, etc.

To begin with, I'm not seeing *Australia split between Dutch & French. One or the other, maybe. Or maybe Spanish, which would appear to make Australia even more heavily populated than OTL, based on Spain.

As for succession, I think you get a more Balkanized North America. IMO, at some point, Upper Canada/BNA gets incorporated into the OTL U.S., & there's one British America (to the Mississippi, north to the Arctic, southern border around Colorado or South Dakota, including most of OTL British Columbia & Oregon/Washington), plus, possibly, Spanish America (West of the Mississippi as far north as Colorado) & a Russian America (Alaska, North BC or Alaska Panhandle {coastal BC}, Yukon). This depends on whether Britain fights them between 1776 & 2012 & the territories are turned over to one side or the other.

I don't see France keeping anything. I do see separatistes being an even bigger PITA than they are OTL.

(The Brits bungled that one... A separate legal, educational, & linguistic system was a bad precedent...)

The Ubbergeek · Nov 23, 2012

phx1138 said:
I don't see France keeping anything. I do see separatistes being an even bigger PITA than they are OTL. (The Brits bungled that one... A separate legal, educational, & linguistic system was a bad precedent...)

AU contraire.

Britain was clever, they got peace and at least a cool neutrality.

Oppress a minority, and well...

A wise conqueror and ruler may very well actually give respect to minorities. They may very well give much in return, by at least self interest.

Derek Pullem · Nov 23, 2012

phx1138 said:
To begin with, I'm not seeing *Australia split between Dutch & French. One or the other, maybe. Or maybe Spanish, which would appear to make Australia even more heavily populated than OTL, based on Spain.

As for succession, I think you get a more Balkanized North America. IMO, at some point, Upper Canada/BNA gets incorporated into the OTL U.S., & there's one British America (to the Mississippi, north to the Arctic, southern border around Colorado or South Dakota, including most of OTL British Columbia & Oregon/Washington), plus, possibly, Spanish America (West of the Mississippi as far north as Colorado) & a Russian America (Alaska, North BC or Alaska Panhandle {coastal BC}, Yukon). This depends on whether Britain fights them between 1776 & 2012 & the territories are turned over to one side or the other.

I don't see France keeping anything. I do see separatistes being an even bigger PITA than they are OTL. (The Brits bungled that one... A separate legal, educational, & linguistic system was a bad precedent...)

With a British North America the question will be "How many dominions?" It is highly likely that if the revolution is avoided then colonial unrest will still happen triggering an analogue of the Durham report. If this recommends responsible self government then would the UK dare to set up a pan-American dominion in the aftermath of an alt-Napoleonic struggle with France (which would happen with or without a French Revolution).

My guess would be that they wouldn't although it would be difficult to see how the dominions may be set up. Possibly it would be a very loose confederation of states (see some of the proposals for the India self government in the early 20th century)

This may well slow expansion down somewhat although I can still see conflicts with Spain and Russia resulting in a very pink looking BNA on the map.

A revolutionary conflict in the South over the abolition of slavery is likely but doomed to failure (particularly as it could crop up in the middle of a French War - UK will not tolerate any nonsense threatening its #1 colony

The development of BNA if it stays within the British Empire will be fascinating. It is entirely possible that a transatlantic parliament may be set up once communications permit (possibly with the advent of the telegraph, more likely with the advent of radio and in the aftermath of an alt-WW1) This may even be extended to the "white" colonies of Australia and New Zealand. I can see where the OP was going with a French / Dutch Australia but it would not survive the next Anglo_French war (cf South Africa)

A bigger question might be India - does this still become the jewel in the crown or is it more an inconvienience? Possibly India is treated more like China with EIC reined in to concentrate on trading.

focusjon · Nov 23, 2012

I believe there is a book called " the two Georges". Where a similar situation happens and the world is pretty much under European colonialism.

Montanian · Nov 23, 2012

Fred Anderson's superb history of the period leading up to the American Revolution, "Crucible of War", belies the myth of British oppression, the American colonists were the least taxed and most prosperous of Britain's colonists by a marked rate and it's military actions were to protect it's colonists from the adjacent Indians tribes, French, and Spanish. It's hard to tell what easier steps could be done, the new taxes were to for the Americans to pay part of the war debt costs for directly defending them from the French and their Indian allies. The British were considerably harsher and more duplicitous with their Indian allies and foes, using tactics the same British commanders like Howe and Tarleton had worked out using in genocidal warfare against the Irish Catholics in their earlier postings (including paying for scalps of the Irish and burning villages. The higher quality and quantity of British manufactured goods drew the Indian trade despite far better treatment by the French. That the Revolution happened is more of a string of very unlikely POD's OTL so it's a surprisingly reasonable AH string. Without coming to the Americans' aid, the French Revolution and Napoleon become far less likely while increased French emigration to the overseas colonies in all directions becomes much more likely given how bad conditions in France were (so perhaps the Corsican artillerist ends up in a French colony like Haiti or Frence's portion of India. ) The Spanish wouldn't lose the middle part of North America to Napoleon and be quite unlikely to sell it to Thomas Jefferson so a British-Spanish War(s) fought along that border country between the Mississippi and Appalachians, Florida, the Gulf Coast, Carribbean islands, etc. would be a very likely result I think.

Umbric Man · Nov 23, 2012

I should point out while more likely to be balkanized, it's not a sure thing by any means. Thomas Jefferson believed a Pacific republic would exists, and, well, it obviously doesn't.

And a single big dominion may exist because the concept of dominion-hood was invented by Benjamin-freaking-Franklin of all people in 1754.

As for the Southwest and California and Louisiana - it's popular and plausible to assume in the *French Revolutionary/*Napoleonic Wars Louisiana falls to Anglo-American troops. What many people forget is that Spain is an ally of France for most of that time frame, and American ships had temporarily captured San Diego (not even a full warship that did it!) while explorers and bands were already causing serious revolts in Texas (McGee-Guitierrez Expedition) and moving through New Mexico. Surely the equivalent of the armies the Brits and Yanks threw at each other in 1812 or in the Barbary Wars could take what filibusters were already.

Again, I'm not saying this is pre-ordained, but if a republican America on its own could extend to the Pacific, surely a Loyalist America that has Britain bucking it up do the same if you focus on finding ways to conquer French/Spanish North America during the last great round of colonial wars. And yes, America, as in a singular America, not just Dixie or New England or *Cascadia or whatnot.

Dave Howery · Nov 23, 2012

focusjon said:
I believe there is a book called " the two Georges". Where a similar situation happens and the world is pretty much under European colonialism.

which is something I thought was unlikely... just why would the majority of the world's population submit to that?

Montanian said:
Fred Anderson's superb history of the period leading up to the American Revolution, "Crucible of War", belies the myth of British oppression, the American colonists were the least taxed and most prosperous of Britain's colonists by a marked rate

I think most of us here know that. There's no real debate about it. As I've often said on here, the main cause of the ARW was the end of British 'benign neglect'. The Brits were bound and determined to finally collect the handful of taxes the Americans actually owed (which were rarely collected in full to begin with) and crack down on smuggling (which the colonists excelled at). Along with this, there were squabbles over the colonists moving west into native lands (something the Brits tried to control and reduce), mercantilism, etc. And, although it wasn't the most prominent reason in spite of what our history books say, there really was some anger over the 'taxation without representation' thing. The only way the ARW would have been prevented was for Britain to go back to benign neglect and ignore the colonies again... which would have led to an eventual peaceful separation anyway... granted, this would be a major POD...

BELFAST · Nov 23, 2012

A lot depends on how many Irish and other European settlers arrive.

Socrates · Nov 23, 2012

Dave Howery said:
I think most of us here know that.

While I don't want to wade into the debate over which side was right and wrong, as it often overtakes these threads unfairly, I just want to point out this isn't true. Many of us on here feel the colonists had legitimate grievances, and those grievances became increasingly severe with the subsequent British responses. I'd say its a 50-50 split.