DBWI: Washington's rebellion suceeds

[Johannes Parisiensis]

As you know, the felon General George Washington was hanged, drawn and quartered for raising the people of the colonies against His Majesty's authority.

I would like to know how this rebellion could suceed and what could happen in case of victoy from the rebels.

 

[Danth]

OOC: Hung drawn and quartered what is this the dark ages a negotiated settlement is more likely...sigh I'll go with it.

Well their wouldn't have been a major rebellion latter on that is for sure, Britain might also have kept Canada rather than the Southern American States

 

[Space Oddity]

Also, Britain might still be a monarchy. Which would be terrible. Hail the Second Commonwealth!

 

[free115]

Agreed the Second Rebellion completely destroyed Britain. At war with majority of Europe and facing rebellion in all of North America. The increase of tyrannical actions by the gov caused the Great Revolt.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I'm not sure they really could "succeed" in the sense of liberating all 13 colonies, but I think they could achieve independence in a few of them, and fend off against further British attempts to retake their land.

 

[Space Oddity]

Exactly. It was the increased oppression at home caused by the efforts to crush "Washington's Rebellion"--and damn I hate that name--that ultimately undermined the government enough to result in the end of the monarchy. I mean--leaving aside the barbaric death of Washington--General Howe was removed, charged with treason, and shot! His brother, one of the finest admirals in the Navy was arrested. The government degraded into a tyrannical monstrosity that ended it.

 

[Alternate History]

The colonials were pretty hostile to the natives, to the point where the monarchy had to protect the Native Americans from the excesses of the colonials. (Though they weren't as friendly as the Commonwealth. Indeed, if it hadn't been for the enlightened foreign policy of the republican government, the Mexican Empire would probably have subsumed the remaining Sioux, Cheyenne, Apache etc. confederacies.) It would be a Native American-screw for sure (would it be plausible that they would ally with the Mexicans and destroy the independent native states completely, dividing them up? I'm feeling like this would be kind of a stretch, but not impossible.).

 

[twovultures]

Without the colonies in the Americas, the convict ships might have to go elsewhere-perhaps Africa, or even further afield. Possibly places like New Louisiana (OOC: West Australia) wouldn't exist due to Anglophone colonies seeded by convicts.

Convicts sent in different places would butterfly away a lot of the North American Metis culture south of the Great Lakes. Without convicts running to join them, many Native American tribes would have a very different history-their numbers may not have been so easily replenished from disease, and they would not have had British citizens within their ranks to sue for land rights (not that they got much out of the courts IOTL, but the seeds for "autonomous towns" would not be laid).

The real question is if the monarchy survives after a successful revolt. They were overthrown for trying too hard to win, and I don't see them doing well if they fail-damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

 

[Danth]

The Southern American Union might be connected to the free 13 colonies if they win the rebellion. So maybe no slaveocracy that goes into the 1920's?

 

[Johannes Parisiensis]

It would be a huge Indian-screw: the colons were protesting they weren't able to take land from "these savages".
And maybe the French revolution would happen sooner than the 1800s - they were quickly-dropped plans to help these insurgents.

OOC: Hung drawn and quartered what is this the dark ages a negotiated settlement is more likely...sigh I'll go with it.

OOC: François Henri de la Motte suffered this punishment for spying in 1783 although he was "merely" hanged.

Other occurences of this supplice happened until 1820, sentences were handed in Britain until the 1830s and the last sentence was in New Zealand, in 1869.

 

[U.S David]

Well, everything north of the Caliorias are now part of the American Federation. I hope the South votes on joining us next year.

Then Washington would not have died in vain...

 

[Sabot Cat]

I think it would have been effectively the same. There was very little difference in ideologies, cultural outlook, et. al., between Washington's rebel colonists and the people of United Kingdom.

 

[Ultimate Paragon]

I doubt the Thirteen Colonies could have united. Despite the picture of unity the rebel leaders tried to paint, the tensions between, say, Massachusetts and South Carolina were obvious.

 

[Warr]

I think we would've seen a more largely anglophone Americas, honestly.

I mean, yes, The United Republic of the Rio Grande & The Californias is technically an English speaking state, given their constitution and laws are all fully bilingual, with some departments of the region being tri-lingual or more in their own bills of rights, but I like to think if Washington had succeeded we might have ended up with an English Speaking 'Union' from sea to shining sea.

From Canada to and the Carolinas in the east (perhaps even anglophone-hispanophone Florida-Georgia too!) to the Californias and Chihuahua in the south, and British Columbia and New Connacht in the West; we might have seen a largely anglophone North America.

Hell! We might have even not been dealing with those damn Alaskis running across the Federation's borders looking for jobs; and god knows that the Five Republics of Ireland would've never seen their united revolt if it hadn't been for all those Rio Grandese & Californian emigrating Irish and Scottish during the Great Famine of the 1840s.

Has anyone ever even been to the United Republics? You need to speak like 5 langauges just to get by! And they have Gaeltachts. What silliness? Not even the Five Republics have those!

 

[Sabot Cat]

I think we would've seen a more largely anglophone Americas, honestly.

I mean, yes, The United Republic of the Rio Grande & The Californias is technically an English speaking state, given their constitution and laws are all fully bilingual, with some departments of the region being tri-lingual or more in their own bills of rights, but I like to think if Washington had succeeded we might have ended up with an English Speaking 'Union' from sea to shining sea.

Slightly offtopic, but that's a really nice turn of phrase; would you mind if I used it as the name for my next alternate history timeline on a successful Washington Rebellion?

 

[Tyr]

The big question for me is what would happen in the Great War. Without the manpower of the colonies it seems likely to be that the Russians could have fully overran France.... A horrific thought.
Such a thing happening as per otl seems unlikely of course but it seems very likely that at some point there would be a show down between Russia and the western democracies.
And Germany getting screwed is bound to be a big part of that

The Southern American Union might be connected to the free 13 colonies if they win the rebellion. So maybe no slaveocracy that goes into the 1920's?

From all accounts the American South was a pretty shitty place to be black before the civil rights movement in the 10s/20s but slaveocracy? I think that's a bit much, especially since we're comparing it to barbaric times when in some colonies it was legal to have actual slaves.

 

[Locke01]

OOC: Hung drawn and quartered what is this the dark ages a negotiated settlement is more likely...sigh I'll go with it.

Well their wouldn't have been a major rebellion latter on that is for sure, Britain might also have kept Canada rather than the Southern American States

Hanging, drawing and quartering remained the official punishment for treason in the United Kingdom until 1870, and was last inflicted in 1820. By the mid-18th century, however, it was customary for executioners to hang the prisoner until he was dead before mutilating the corpse. After 1814, it was legally required that prisoners be hanged until they were dead before being quartered. And in the United States, as late as 1811, it was not unheard of for slaves to be beheaded and their corpses put on public display. So, the execution of Washington for treason in this fashion is not impossible if he had been taken to England for trial.

 

[Johannes Parisiensis]

I think we would've seen a more largely anglophone Americas, honestly.

I mean, yes, The United Republic of the Rio Grande & The Californias is technically an English speaking state, given their constitution and laws are all fully bilingual, with some departments of the region being tri-lingual or more in their own bills of rights, but I like to think if Washington had succeeded we might have ended up with an English Speaking 'Union' from sea to shining sea.

From Canada to and the Carolinas in the east (perhaps even anglophone-hispanophone Florida-Georgia too!) to the Californias and Chihuahua in the south, and British Columbia and New Connacht in the West; we might have seen a largely anglophone North America.

Hell! We might have even not been dealing with those damn Alaskis running across the Federation's borders looking for jobs; and god knows that the Five Republics of Ireland would've never seen their united revolt if it hadn't been for all those Rio Grandese & Californian emigrating Irish and Scottish during the Great Famine of the 1840s.

Has anyone ever even been to the United Republics? You need to speak like 5 langauges just to get by! And they have Gaeltachts. What silliness? Not even the Five Republics have those!

Would the Indians languages be as widespread as in a TL where Washington would win?

I don't believe there would be much expension beyong the Mississippi river, meaning Tejas and California would stay Spanish-speaking.

 

[Whitewings]

Personally, I suspect that relations between Canada and... whatever the colonies ended calling themselves would be very tense for quite some time, probably fifty years or more. I just can't see a bunch of successful rebels getting on well with a bunch of superficially similar loyalists.

 

[usertron2020]

If only Mad King George had been consumed by his illnesses sooner. By all accounts, his son, the Never-was-to-be George IV, while no genius, apparently did believe that monarchs ruled best who ruled least. It was George III's "King's Friends" movement in Parliament that upset the internal balance of power in British politics, leading to all out war in America while pretending that the Continent and war finances were mere trifles.

For all the latter day romanticism we may apply to the founding of the Second Commonwealth, in the end it was created much like Cromwell's: Monarchical overreach. At least George III though had the defense of being truly mentally ill, and by genetic/physical causes. Charles I was a pouty simpleton and a genuine fool.