What if Britain Succeeded in Quelling the American Revolution?

[Frodo]

Imagine, for a moment, that General Sir William Howe actually wiped out the American army on Long Island in August 1776, instead of letting Washington pull a Dunkirk on him, and then pulling north along the Hudson to join with another British army coming down from Canada via Lake Champlain under General Carleton.  Carleton brushes aside Benedict Arnold's makeshift flotilla on Lake Champlain, and continues going south, recapturing Fort Ticonderoga.  Howe and Carleton eventually meet at Albany, cutting off New England from the rest of the rebelling colonies.
----------------------------------------------

Carry on this scenario........

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I'll give a general outline of one path how it could go. A significantly stronger and beefierbritish empire basically snaps up Spain and France's new world colonial empires in the 1790s or os( france tries a war of revenge in retaliation for losing the 7 ywars war). THe British commonwealth today includes 500 million developed english sapeaking people in the new world.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

I'll give a general outline of one path how it could go. A significantly stronger and beefierbritish empire basically snaps up Spain and France's new world colonial empires in the 1790s or os( france tries a war of revenge in retaliation for losing the 7 ywars war). THe British commonwealth today includes 500 million developed english sapeaking people in the new world.

I wrote a paper on that for my European history class, my teacher was appaled that I actually thought about those things, and wished they wouldve happened

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I'll give a general outline of one path how it could go. A significantly stronger and beefierbritish empire basically snaps up Spain and France's new world colonial empires in the 1790s or os( france tries a war of revenge in retaliation for losing the 7 ywars war). THe British commonwealth today includes 500 million developed english sapeaking people in the new world.

I wrote a paper on that for my European history class, my teacher was appaled that I actually thought about those things, and wished they wouldve happened

LOL. Blame british/euro fluffy bunnyism for them being appalled.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Bourbons are clearly better off in such a scenario.  The British will still have a couple more years of fighting that while not putting them in any danger of losing, will be expensive and the French will not be investing any significant funds in the American cause.  The British will have to offer a political compromise to the Americans.  They can't afford to indefinitely station an army in the colonies to prevent a second rebellion.  Still, the British are not going to be keen on expanding their colonial dominions anytime soon.

Rather than an Anglo-French war in the 1790's, I think an Anglo-Dutch war is far likelier.  The die hard Revolutionaries are likely to have headed to the Netherlands and the Dutch commercial empire was far more interesting to the British than anything Spain or France has.  Louis XVI does not strike me as a king who would seek to engage in wars of glory.  Charles IV might have been cowed by his wife into a war, but without French support I can't see him starting one.

If there is to a be a grand Europe-wide war at the turn of the 18th Century, it's likely to arise out of the Holy Roman Empire.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I was presuming a simple war of revenge involving the UK against at least france-spain. I can also see an anglo-dutch war triggering a seoncd 7 years war.

[Colin]

I'll give a general outline of one path how it could go. A significantly stronger and beefierbritish empire basically snaps up Spain and France's new world colonial empires in the 1790s or os( france tries a war of revenge in retaliation for losing the 7 ywars war). THe British commonwealth today includes 500 million developed english sapeaking people in the new world.

I wrote a paper on that for my European history class, my teacher was appaled that I actually thought about those things, and wished they wouldve happened

Well much like that I've always considered that the world probably would have been a better place if Germany had won WWI. I believe the moral of the 20th century was don't piss of Germany. So while that is a little strange to some I would much rather have a powerful and most likely Democratic German Empire versus the insanity of the actual 20th century.

[Frodo]

The Bourbons are clearly better off in such a scenario.  The British will still have a couple more years of fighting that while not putting them in any danger of losing, will be expensive and the French will not be investing any significant funds in the American cause.  The British will have to offer a political compromise to the Americans.  They can't afford to indefinitely station an army in the colonies to prevent a second rebellion.  Still, the British are not going to be keen on expanding their colonial dominions anytime soon.

As far as the colonies are concerned, what happens afterwards?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

New England remains under a tight and restless leash for a decade or so and is forcibly united into one colony with the Connecticut River forming the border with New York.

The Quebec Act stands for a couple of decades with its borders reaching to Ohio River providing a refuge for the Natives and the French colonialists.  With no fleeing loyalists, the settlement of Canada in earnest is delayed by several decades.  However, new colonies south of the Ohio River, Ohio, Kentucky, Cumberland, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida get largely opened up for settlement, though with a bit more respect for native land claims than the U.S. had.

Sometime between 1810 and 1830 the land north of the Ohio that isn't in the Great Lakes / St. Lawrence gets opened up to settlement.  At about the same time, Britain makes Spain an offer it can't refuse for Louisiana, and later does the same for "Texas", the territory east of the Brazos River, but with the territory west of the Brazos semi-settled by Spanish subjects instead of wild Indians, Britian doesn't press any farther there.

Slavery officially ends in the mid-1830's, same as in OTL,  but the period of time in which the indenture system that replaced it in the British colonies is several decades instead of the few years that it was in OTL.

[Beet]

America eventually gains its independence Canada style? Or is it more like Ireland style?

[Boris]

America eventually gains its independence Canada style? Or is it more like Ireland style?

If America gained its independence in the former style, would we have a parliamentary system as opposed to a presidential system today?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Probably a Canadian/Australian style independence with a semi-parliamentary/weak presidential system with appointed royal governors and elected lieutenant governors that hold some executive power but no legislative power.  However, any prediction after 1850 is really straining those butterfly wings awfully hard.

[J. J.]

It would depend how the war ended.  Even a defeat would have led to a guerrilla war.  I can see "Bloody America," in both senses of the word, for several decades. 

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Not necesarily. IF the revolution is put down violently and bloodily by 1783 then yes but if its a series of small uprisings from 1777-1779 then no.

[minionofmidas]

I'm personally of the opinion that by 1776, it was too late for Britain to succeed in quelling the American Revolution. The best that Howe's victory could have achieved is a longer war and a weaker independent US (not extending past the Appalachians - now that might have interesting ramifications to the present day) with better relations with Britain (on this count, the scenario converges with OTL after OTL's war of 1812.)

If Britain had succeeded in quelling the American Revolution, ending in eventual Canada-style independence after 1920 (quite possibly for several independent nations on the eastern seaboard and a very large but still comparatively wild Louisiana rather than a United States), it would have done so by diverging from OTL at least a couple of years before the Declaration of Independence.

[Frodo]

So, shall I take it that no one here believes that Britain will take punitive measures to prevent another rebellion?  That the peace that follows an American surrender to the British will not be overly harsh? 

[Bo]

The U.S. would have eventually gained its independence, but it would have taken at least several decades more. The U.S. might have looked like Canada or Australia today, though.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's even possible there would be more than one American country.

[Bo]

It's even possible there would be more than one American country.

I agree, even though I think it's unlikely as Canda and Australia never got split up, even though Canada has both English and French areas.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's even possible there would be more than one American country.

I agree, even though I think it's unlikely as Canda and Australia never got split up, even though Canada has both English and French areas.

Actually, ties between colonies were in many cases very weak. And before Contitution, ties between the states were weak too.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So, shall I take it that no one here believes that Britain will take punitive measures to prevent another rebellion?  That the peace that follows an American surrender to the British will not be overly harsh? 

Consider the aftermath of the Irish Rebellion of 1798, I'd imagine that the result would be similar.  The local Tories taking punitive measures with the government in London taking steps to give the colonies more say.

[ARescan]

I'm going to go with a twist and say we gain our independence short after because Britain will have lost a large European war against a French, Spanish, and HRE alliance.

[Psychic Octopus]

I'm inclined to say "America" is comprised of Canada, the East Coast, and the Plains, with Mexico holding Texas and the West.