So the American Revolution fails. When's the next one?

[Baskilisk]

Unless you think that no successful ARW means that the British Empire stays around forever, when do you think the "Americans" will rebel again? Will they be successful? Who will join them? What happens to Canada, Texas, Louisiana, California, and Oregon Territory? Will they be inspired by the French Revolution, Latin American Revolutions, European revolutions and unification (I'm thinking 1848), or Karl Marx? What butterflies does this have on the Napoleanic Wars and everything afterwards? Or more importantly, why is the war lost? A Saratoga that went horribly wrong, no foreign involvement, or a non-cooperative South?
Just something to think about.

 

[Nicole]

Is this really a "when" question? Canada had one failed rebellion, and then eventually accepted the heavy yoke of the British Empire and remains tied by it to this day. (though admittedly, less heavy)

The west (meaning the Old Northwest at this point) is quite interesting- there is going to be settlement, but how it goes may be different- will the British divide everything up into squares the same way the Americans did? There may also be more of an effort to make some sort of accommodations for the native tribes.

 

[lothaw]

A very likely POD for this would be Benidict Arnold successfully surrendering West Point to Clinton.

As far as the next rebellion? Most likely during the Napoleonic wars, especially when the inevitable war taxes start coming to play. That alone would probably restoke the fires of American liberty.

As for the West, Britain was adamantly against the colonies expanding in that direction. Of course it may very well be hard to avoid especially when some disidents wish to get away from the Royal Crown and the Loyalists.

As for an Indian Nation, this is actually a very realistic possibility. Britain did advocate the formation of one before America began expanding west.

 

[Baskilisk]

Is this really a "when" question? Canada had one failed rebellion, and then eventually accepted the heavy yoke of the British Empire and remains tied by it to this day. (though admittedly, less heavy)

The Canadian rebellion was a joke compared to the American one. And Canada, Australia, India and SOuth Africa are independant today...So of course it would be when. The fact is, Britain is just an island. These places are going to demand greater and greater home rule eventually. Especially when a distinct regional character forms. It may take 500 years, but the UK can't hold America forever. Worst case scenario, America becomes the power base of the empire more and more, and some place like Philadelphia or New York eventually replaces London. But that would take a long, long, long time.

 

[AirshipArmada]

For the 100 years before the ARW there was something like one rebellion for every 6 or 7 years (on average). After a failed AWR things would get even worse. England would try and make America pay for the war. The colonies would harbor lots and lots of bitter people with an axe to grind. My guess is things would boil up again in the early 1790's.

Colonists would move into the Louisiana Territory no matter who owns it (Spain, France, Indians - doesn't matter). Texas would stay part of Mexico, ditto California.

 

[Osakadave]

For the 100 years before the ARW there was something like one rebellion for every 6 or 7 years (on average). After a failed AWR things would get even worse. England would try and make America pay for the war. The colonies would harbor lots and lots of bitter people with an axe to grind. My guess is things would boil up again in the early 1790's.

Colonists would move into the Louisiana Territory no matter who owns it (Spain, France, Indians - doesn't matter). Texas would stay part of Mexico, ditto California.

Heh. Instead of a Texas revolution, there might be another German Coast rebellion a la 1768, but supported by the freebooting types who ended up in Texas.

 

[lothaw]

There was an attempt to take Texas from Spain in the 1820's. Stands to reason the dissidents from the American colonies might see Texas and incidentally Spain as an achievable goal.

Possibly Florida as well, which was an independent nation of sorts for awhile OTL.

 

[Andrew Hudson]

1834? The abolition of slavery in the colonies leads to a revolt in the states. New England doesn't join in neither does Canada as the loyalist influence is still strong. Louisiana is annexed by Britain in the Napoleonic Wars. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California remain within Mexico.

 

[Nova]

1834? The abolition of slavery in the colonies leads to a revolt in the states. New England doesn't join in neither does Canada as the loyalist influence is still strong. Louisiana is annexed by Britain in the Napoleonic Wars. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California remain within Mexico.

If the American colonies are still part of the empire, Britian won't end slavery. The only reason they ended it when they did OTL is that it wasn't especially profitable in the rest of the empire.

 

[David S Poepoe]

If the American colonies are still part of the empire, Britian won't end slavery. The only reason they ended it when they did OTL is that it wasn't especially profitable in the rest of the empire.

I would consider that it would be harder for the British to end it, not impossible.

In general regards to a Second American Rebellion, once the colonies receive some sort of self-government they won't be likely to rebel at all. There would be some sort of 'imperial tax', but it would be locally collected. The colonies originally rebelled about the concept of 'taxation without representation', but it should be distilled further to that they simply did not want to pay their fair portion of the expenses. These are businessmen that would find and exploit any loophole that would further their gains and would raise riot if they were taxed even a penny.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Is this really a "when" question? Canada had one failed rebellion, and then eventually accepted the heavy yoke of the British Empire and remains tied by it to this day. (though admittedly, less heavy)

Which heavy yoke was that, exactly? And yes, the Canadian rebellion was in fact a joke.

For the 100 years before the ARW there was something like one rebellion for every 6 or 7 years (on average). After a failed AWR things would get even worse. England would try and make America pay for the war. The colonies would harbor lots and lots of bitter people with an axe to grind. My guess is things would boil up again in the early 1790's.

Rebellions without, I believe, the objective of independence. I in any case am dubious about such a figure. The most likely British "victory" is an early one followed by reconciliation and the fulfilment of most American demands, thus making "forcing America to pay" mostly unnecessary and constitutionally impossible.

Fun fact: a disproportionate number of senior officers in the ARW British army were Scots.

1834? The abolition of slavery in the colonies leads to a revolt in the states. New England doesn't join in neither does Canada as the loyalist influence is still strong. Louisiana is annexed by Britain in the Napoleonic Wars. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California remain within Mexico.

Canada? What Canada? Next you'll be telling me that Toronto was its capital!

If the American colonies are still part of the empire, Britian won't end slavery. The only reason they ended it when they did OTL is that it wasn't especially profitable in the rest of the empire.

This is excessively cynical, since we did actively hunt down slave-ships belonging to other nations. It is also untrue, since IIRC Jamaica had long economic problems caused by the abolition.

 

[President Sam Houston]

Prior to the start of the ARW, there were numerous acts of minor terrorism by various rellion group, most notably the Sons of Liberty led by Samuel Adams and others (remember the Boston Tea Party). Once the organized war effort fails, and depending upon how the British deal with the American leadership - signers of the Declaration of Independence and the upper level officers of the Continuental Army (starting with Washington), I think there will be an almost constant underground war conducted mostly with acts of more and more violent terrorism.

If the British decided to make an example of the Americans and deal with them very harshly (leadership rounded up and imprisoned and/or executed, thousands of British troops occupying the colonies "to keep the peace," and the removal of most rights of freedom that the colonists had enjoyed prior to the revolution), then you would end up with a very different America. Violence and acts terrorism would escalate as colonists did what they could to force the British out. Colonial governors and other politicos appointed by the British crown and Parliment would be in constant danger, and in many cases would be killed or kidnapped. Such positions would become very undesirable by loyalists and English born citizens. Immigration to the colonies would almost completely dry up as they would not be seen as a place of hope and freedom, and in fact, thousands who could afford to would emmigrate back to England or Scotland. Because of the acts of terrorism, the English grip on the colonies would become even tighter. If this situation lasted for 12-15 years, then eventually, the American colonies become secondary to British Canada and are eventually linked with Canada. Louisiana either stays with the French or is really given/sold to Spain. The North American continent looks nothing like it does in OTL.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Prior to the start of the ARW, there were numerous acts of minor terrorism by various rellion group, most notably the Sons of Liberty led by Samuel Adams and others (remember the Boston Tea Party). Once the organized war effort fails, and depending upon how the British deal with the American leadership - signers of the Declaration of Independence and the upper level officers of the Continuental Army (starting with Washington), I think there will be an almost constant underground war conducted mostly with acts of more and more violent terrorism.

If the British decided to make an example of the Americans and deal with them very harshly (leadership rounded up and imprisoned and/or executed, thousands of British troops occupying the colonies "to keep the peace," and the removal of most rights of freedom that the colonists had enjoyed prior to the revolution), then you would end up with a very different America. Violence and acts terrorism would escalate as colonists did what they could to force the British out. Colonial governors and other politicos appointed by the British crown and Parliment would be in constant danger, and in many cases would be killed or kidnapped. Such positions would become very undesirable by loyalists and English born citizens. Immigration to the colonies would almost completely dry up as they would not be seen as a place of hope and freedom, and in fact, thousands who could afford to would emmigrate back to England or Scotland. Because of the acts of terrorism, the English grip on the colonies would become even tighter. If this situation lasted for 12-15 years, then eventually, the American colonies become secondary to British Canada and are eventually linked with Canada. Louisiana either stays with the French or is really given/sold to Spain. The North American continent looks nothing like it does in OTL.

Okay:

1) It was totally possible for Britain to win the war before the DoI was signed, had we collared Washington and more of his troops at New York. The likely result is a few top revolutionaries sentenced to death and commuted, eventual dominion status. In fact, this is pretty much our only chance. Anything else will lead to just the senario you describe, financial ruin, and political turmoil at home.

2) British-born citizens! British grip! And I'd say that "Emmigrate back to Great Britain" is more elegant, but you're right. Who would emmigrate into Wales?

3) British Canada? What British Canada?

 

[President Sam Houston]

Okay:

1) It was totally possible for Britain to win the war before the DoI was signed, had we collared Washington and more of his troops at New York. The likely result is a few top revolutionaries sentenced to death and commuted, eventual dominion status. In fact, this is pretty much our only chance. Anything else will lead to just the senario you describe, financial ruin, and political turmoil at home.

As I think about it, no matter when Great Britain might have defeated the Americans (early in the war or much later), I believe that GB would deal harshly with the colonies and take the measures to prevent another uprising from really starting. And these harsh measures would have choked the life out of the colonies. I just don't see a scenario where GB either gives the colonies a slap on the wrist allowing the seeds of rebellion to take root again, or gives into the various demands of the colonists for more self rule and participation in parliment - since after all, the colonies have no bargaining position having lost the war.

2) British-born citizens! British grip! And I'd say that "Emmigrate back to Great Britain" is more elegant, but you're right. Who would emmigrate into Wales?

Sorry - Should have used correct terminology. Question, so how many different names have been used to recognize the independent country that occupies most or all of the larger island off the northwest coast of continental Europe?

3) British Canada? What British Canada?

The large area of land north of present day USA that is still tacitly linked to the UK.

 

[Shawn Endresen]

I agree that maintaining the South won't slow down British Abolition; it was vigorously opposed by their Indian and African colonies in OTL and passed anyway, so it seems pretty clear that it was not a decision rooted in economics. And yes, the American South will rebel at that point, the North won't actively support that rebellion but will probably strive to not be too terribly useful to the British either.

Texas will still rebel; its timing is bad for getting any foreign help, and it probably needs some to retain its independence indefinitely - but it will be getting a lot of immigrants if the South's 1833/4 rebellion fails.

I don't think the British were keen to posess Louisiana for themselves at any point; nominal Spanish dominion, and actual lawlessness there, suited their interests perfectly. American immigrants might thus flood into it and rebel against Spain - a sort of bigger Texas - without directly fighting Britain.

Napoleon is a good opportunity, but it requires the Americans to believe they have good chance of success. After 1805, it's obvious that Bonapartist France is not going to be a naval power to challenge Britain, so the American rebels must know that eventually Britain will be able to focus its attentions on them. Before 1793, the French aren't credible allies/sponsors, and maybe not after the coronation in 1803. Makes for a very narrow window to organize and start a continent-wide rebellion.

 

[DuQuense]

My scenario for the British win is a 'Disaster at Trenton'
https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=91140&highlight=disaster+trenton

The Signers whe pledged their 'Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor' have lost their Lives and Fortunes, And Sacred Honor will depend on which side the observer was on.

Any way the Top of the Patriot leadership is gone, leaving the Tories in Charge.
It will take a generation [33 years] for a new group of Patriot leadership to rise to the Top.

?Will the British keep their promise and free the Blacks that enlisted?

Remembre this all started over British attempts to get some money to pay for the French Indian War. And here they have a second war to pay for.

A lot will depend on how Britain reacts after the fighting is over.

 

[I Blame Communism]

The large area of land north of present day USA that is still tacitly linked to the UK.

You claimed that America would be subordinated to "British Canada". Not only is this logistically absurd, but in 1783 there was no colony called Canada and the what we now know as Canada was either:

1) Unsettled by Europeans of any stripe, including north-west Quebec and Ontario and everything north and west of that.

2) Francophone or basically unsettled but ruled from Quebec, including the Canadian heartland on the St.Lawrence and the Ontario not-a-real-peninsula.

3) Nova Scotia, which was very small, and was the only part of modern Canada to seriously contemplate becoming the 14th colony.

"British Canada" as a united, mostly Anglophone nation with strong ties to Britain was caused by American independence: an enormous number of loyalists fled into the remaining British colonies.

DuQuesne, Shawn Endresen, I fully agree.

 

[AirshipArmada]

Any way the Top of the Patriot leadership is gone, leaving the Tories in Charge.
It will take a generation [33 years] for a new group of Patriot leadership to rise to the Top.

Why 33 years? If the ARW fails at New York then the entire South still has its own stable of rebels ready to fight again soon. Even if the ARW fails much later we have people like Andrew Jackson who is ready to lead very soon. 33 years is too long.

 

[Superftagn]

More likely, instead of waiting for a coherent web of political leadership to regenerate, Patriots who fled to other countries (I'm looking at you, Franklin) and their inheritors would bankroll smaller locally led groups back in the colonies (ala Al Quaeda, aka "the Database"'s role in the world of decentralized Islamic terrorism) and the general resistance/underground would, in absence of coherent leadership, look to those "voices in the wilderness" and indeed probably some literal ones (if men like Burr decide life in an occupied country is intolerable and leave to the frontier, sending back anti-British vitriol from safe distance).

The pioneered territories like future Kentucky and Tennessee would, by virtue of their mountainous terrain and Indian tribes, be sufficient to hide men such as that without being as far away as Texas, Florida, or the barely colonized Louisiana interior (read: the Great Plains).

 

[Claudius]

Would Napoleon have even come to power if the ARW had been put down quickly - say at the Battle of Long Island, or perhaps a failure of the attack on Trenton? The French monarchy would have had two advantages: 1) No huge infusion of French money to America and a global war with Britain, and 2) an object lesson, if they needed one, on dealing with a popular insurrection. With no intervention in North America, the finances of the French state would have been better, and the rebellion against the French monarchy might have taken place later, or not at all. Or perhaps an artillery Captain by the name of Boneparte scatters the rioting Parisian mobs with "a whiff of grapeshot", earning a promotion as a loyal soldier of Louis XVI