What if - Continental Congress signs autonomy deal?

[Gregory]

If the Congress had signed up for the British peace proposals of 1782, with increased anatomy and separation from United Kingdom without outright independence - what might we have had seen in the 18th and 19th century? Would the anglosphere take a more preeminent place, or would American dynamism be stifled by the UK policies?

[Wobbly Head]

If the Congress had signed up for the British peace proposals of 1782, with increased anatomy and separation from United Kingdom without outright independence - what might we have had seen in the 18th and 19th century? Would the anglosphere take a more preeminent place, or would American dynamism be stifled by the UK policies?

 

Probably a very large Canada with all it's 60 provance's 3 territories and one district and a noticable improvement on the beer quality. Canada also had it's rebelion which failed, but did acheive the same as what the proposals of 1782 would have acheived which eventialy led to full independance.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellions_of_1837

[SCFalken]

Louisiana Purchase?

 

Mexican War?

 

Abolition of the Slave Trade?

 

Falken

[Guest JamesG123]

Probably a very large Canada

I can think of worse things that could have happened. Nuevo Espania...

 

Louisiana Purchase?

 

We (the er... British, Canadian, er.. American whatever Army) would have just taken it from Napoleon anyway.

 

What is an interesting question is would Russia sell Alaska to an English America/Canada in the late 1860's? And what impact would that have on the twentieth century?

 

Mexican War?

Probably would have still happened. "Manifest Destiny" would still run its course, I think.

 

Abolition of the Slave Trade?

 

Thirty years earlier with the rest of the British Empire in 1833.

Edited May 1, 2008 by JamesG123

[Mk 1]

Abolition of the Slave Trade?

Thirty years earlier with the rest of the British Empire in 1833.

This issue nearly tore the union apart as it was. Is there any reason to believe that it would have been less devisive thirty years sooner, with a union to an even more remotely located / economically and culturally different set of political masters?

 

-Mark 1

[Guest JamesG123]

True.

 

Did the English abolish the slave trade and operate the anti-slave patrols JUST as an attempt to weaken the US's slave-dependant southern economy?

Would the have not been so noble if they had a vested interest in its profit?

Would Americans have grown so so dependant on it if they were still part of the English crown and not "left to their own devices"?

Probably, but it might not have become so deeply entrenched into the Southern social fabric.

Or would the Southern States have succeded from the UK in the 1830s and we would have have an odd and messy combination of the War for Independance and Civil War rolled together?

[swerve]

True.

 

Did the English abolish the slave trade and operate the anti-slave patrols JUST as an attempt to weaken the US's slave-dependant southern economy?

Would the have not been so noble if they had a vested interest in its profit?

Would Americans have grown so so dependant on it if they were still part of the English crown and not "left to their own devices"?

Probably, but it might not have become so deeply entrenched into the Southern social fabric.

Or would the Southern States have succeded from the UK in the 1830s and we would have have an odd and messy combination of the War for Independance and Civil War rolled together?

 

1. No.

2. Britain did have a vested interest in it. Britain went from being the largest slave trader, & owner of some of the most lucrative slave colonies, to active suppression. Sometimes, morality really does override economic interests.

 

I suspect that the slave owners in the southern states, just like the British slave-owners in the slave colonies, would have done everything they could to oppose abolition, including buying MPs, but it may not have become a totemic issue for the entire white populations of those states. Perhaps a gradual abolition (children born free, & eventually the remaining adult slaves emancipated), as happened in Jamaica et al.

[swerve]

Louisiana Purchase?

 

Mexican War?

 

Abolition of the Slave Trade?

 

Falken

 

1. Probably taken during the Napoleonic Wars, & kept as part of the peace deal, due to pressure from the American colonies & the settlers who'd have moved in as soon as it was seized.

 

2. Probably not. Britain would have recognised Mexico as a lawfully constituted "European" state, & had got out of the business of grabbing the territory of European or European-style states by then. Settlement in border territories might have forced the governments hand, however, e.g. a Texan rebellion would probably have provoked intervention.

 

3. Probably, but perhaps a bit later. Abolitionists in New England, etc, would have gone some way to counter-balancing slavers in the South.

 

America ca 1900 would probably have been far more British, with fewer European immigrants (probably a smaller population), the SW part of a larger Mexico, & more Indians east of the Mississippi. Perhaps some Indian peoples would have their own territories, e.g. the Iroquois & the Cherokees.

 

Australia would probably have become French, as the British settlements there were only established because we had to stop sending convicts to America, & we narrowly pre-empted French settlement. Accepting a French claim to Oz, & perhaps NZ, might have been a sop to the reinstated French kingdom to make up for the loss of Louisiana.

 

One thing that's often neglected is what effect it would have had on Britain. When the American colonies started approaching the population & economic significance of the British Isles, there would have been considerable pressure for that to be recognised in the political arrangements. What sort of settlement would have been reached? Some sort of federal or confederal arrangement? And what about the other colonies? With America to keep us busy, there might have been less interest in Africa & Asia, beyond trading settlements (& India, of course - too late not to grab much of it). Economic penetration of S. America may also have been less interesting. North America would have become the Jewel in the Crown. Events on the European mainland would also have been less significant to us, with the maritime resources of N. America contributing to the RN. Napoleonic Wars yes - but perhaps a gradual loss of interest in the politics across the Channel thereafter.

 

We can, perhaps, envisage a North Atlantic Empire, dominating the oceans, but disdaining involvement in other peoples quarrels as long as they keep their hands off our citizens, & especially our merchants.

Edited May 1, 2008 by swerve

[Xavier]

sort of an isolationist British Empire then, with a big stick to keep everyone else in line, said stick being a RN which would probably be more powerful than all other navies in the world combined

[swerve]

sort of an isolationist British Empire then, with a big stick to keep everyone else in line, said stick being a RN which would probably be more powerful than all other navies in the world combined

 

Possibly, yes. Even more of a maritime superpower than the UK was at its peak, able to intervene on any coast, but lacking the means (i.e. the large army) to venture inland. Few occasions to quarrel with other states, except for concern over Russian ambitions near India. I wonder if it would promote free trade, like the late C19 UK, or try to live off its own extensive resources? When oil became the fuel of choice for warships it might lack interest in Persian oil, but rely on the Texan (whether Mexican or inside Imperial borders), Venezuelan, etc. oilfields.

Edited May 2, 2008 by swerve

[Mote]

Possibly, yes. Even more of a maritime superpower than the UK was at its peak, able to intervene on any coast, but lacking the means (i.e. the large army) to venture inland. Few occasions to quarrel with other states, except for concern over Russian ambitions near India. I wonder if it would promote free trade, like the late C19 UK, or try to live off its own extensive resources? When oil became the fuel of choice for warships it might lack interest in Persian oil, but rely on the Texan (whether Mexican or inside Imperial borders), Venezuelan, etc. oilfields.

 

Why wouldn't it have the large army capable of venturing inland? The North American territories alone should be capable of supporting a relatively large army along with the massive navy. Makes me wonder what the Crimean War would have turned out like if you could add in the men and resources of the USA.

[Xavier]

Why wouldn't it have the large army capable of venturing inland? The North American territories alone should be capable of supporting a relatively large army along with the massive navy. Makes me wonder what the Crimean War would have turned out like if you could add in the men and resources of the USA.

for the same reason Uncle Sam had no army worthy of that name before both world wars: no powerful enemies with a land border to share. Such a Behemoth would only need some garrison troops along the mexican border, some presence in each corner of the empire and some "firefighters" in britain. The largest single force would probably be the Army of India as long as it's still part of the Empire.

Just as the US though, such an empire could raise a huge army in a few years if needed.

[DKTanker]

1. Probably taken during the Napoleonic Wars, & kept as part of the peace deal, due to pressure from the American colonies & the settlers who'd have moved in as soon as it was seized.

What Napoleonic Wars? Not picking on you specifically but what happens in 1782, of huge dynamic import, could easily change European history in ways not so easily understood.

[Xavier]

What Napoleonic Wars? Not picking on you specifically but what happens in 1782, of huge dynamic import, could easily change European history in ways not so easily understood.

now there you have a point, especially if it has a serious influence on the French revolution, or even butterflies it away.

[swerve]

for the same reason Uncle Sam had no army worthy of that name before both world wars: no powerful enemies with a land border to share. Such a Behemoth would only need some garrison troops along the mexican border, some presence in each corner of the empire and some "firefighters" in britain. The largest single force would probably be the Army of India as long as it's still part of the Empire.

Just as the US though, such an empire could raise a huge army in a few years if needed.

 

Exactly. The UK had a smaller army than mainland European states, and even the Indian army was small in proportion to the size & population of the territory it guarded, for exactly the same reason. Once the Mahrattas & the Sikhs were defeated (& both drew on much smaller populations & economies than British India, & had no real chance of matching it), there was nobody left to fight. The Afghans, etc., were really just border skirmishing. The USA had an even smaller standing army in proportion to its resources, for exactly the same reason. Why would a combination of the UK & USA be different? Mexico would not be a serious threat even within its 1830 borders, & who else would there be?

[swerve]

What Napoleonic Wars? Not picking on you specifically but what happens in 1782, of huge dynamic import, could easily change European history in ways not so easily understood.

 

Xavier's right. A different outcome to the American rebellion could provoke different outcomes elsewhere.

 

But . . . I think there's still a good chance of the French revolution. By 1782, the expensive French intervention in the American rebellion had already happened. The harvests wouldn't have been any better. The squeeze on the peasantry to pay off government debts, coinciding with hard times because of the weather, would still have taken place. The king was still a dickhead, & could be relied on to mismanage things. The example of a successful rebellion in the USA is still there, in this scenario, even though success consists of forcing concessions from the British government instead of independence. The Enlightenment was still underway, Austria was still ruled by a liberal (in some senses, though not at all democratic) emperor whose reforms were looked on enviously by the French bourgeoisie, the Dutch were still chafing under the rigidities of their oligarchic republic & smarting at the cost of the disastrous & easily avoidable war with England (how many Americans know Britain inflicted a crushing defeat on the Dutch while fighting America, France, & Spain?), & forming revolutionary societies . . . not really soooo much difference.

[DKTanker]

now there you have a point, especially if it has a serious influence on the French revolution, or even butterflies it away.

That was my thinking. I don't think one can underestimate just how much the AR affected Eurpean events and issues. For this particular what if, and really for all what ifs, one has to take a Hari Seldon approach and track what likely events would occur starting with the historical divergence instead of merely modifying historical events.

 

For instance the Brits created an alliance with the indians with the understanding there would be no more western expansion. If the 1782 treaty transpires does Britain, and its now loyal colonies, honor that understanding?

Edited May 4, 2008 by DKTanker

[DKTanker]

The example of a successful rebellion in the USA is still there, in this scenario, even though success consists of forcing concessions from the British government instead of independence.

Therefore an unsuccessful revolution. Moreover, it is quite possible that King George III would still have had the "traitors" executed per his proclamation of 1775.

The Enlightenment was still underway, Austria was still ruled by a liberal (in some senses, though not at all democratic) emperor whose reforms were looked on enviously by the French bourgeoisie, the Dutch were still chafing under the rigidities of their oligarchic republic & smarting at the cost of the disastrous & easily avoidable war with England (how many Americans know Britain inflicted a crushing defeat on the Dutch while fighting America, France, & Spain?), & forming revolutionary societies . . . not really soooo much difference.

None of which you analyze through the prism of a new historical paradigm.

[swerve]

Therefore an unsuccessful revolution.

You get what you were asking for before the fighting started, & call it unsuccessful?

 

Moreover, it is quite possible that King George III would still have had the "traitors" executed per his proclamation of 1775.

It wasn't up to George III whether the rebels were executed. You seem to think Britain in the 1780s was an absolutist monarchy. Where do you think you lot got the model for your state legislatures from? George reigned, he didn't rule. Influence, not power. And obviously, any negotiated settlement would have to include an amnesty.

 

None of which you analyze through the prism of a new historical paradigm.

What I have done is point out that these things were already happening. They were not caused by the American rebellion, and a diminution in the degree of its success would not necessarily divert them from their course.

Edited May 5, 2008 by swerve

[Old Tanker]

It wasn't up to George III whether the rebels were executed. You seem to think Britain in the 1780s was an absolutist monarchy. Where do you think you lot got the model for your state legislatures from? George reigned, he didn't rule. Influence, not power.

 

Maybe on that side of the pond but he was close to absolute on this side. Examples would be putting in Royal Governors replacing local governments and adding taxes to support the Royal Governors .

[DKTanker]

You get what you were asking for before the fighting started, & call it unsuccessful?

What was declared was independence. Anything short of that is failure.

 

It wasn't up to George III whether the rebels were executed.

Then explain his Proclomation of Rebellion. Evidently B. Franklin thought George had the power and stated so with his "Gentlemen me must hang together. For if we don't, we most surely will hang seperately.

And obviously, any negotiated settlement would have to include an amnesty.

And just as obviously nobody believed an amnesty would be honored.

What I have done is point out that these things were already happening. They were not caused by the American rebellion, and a diminution in the degree of its success would not necessarily divert them from their course.

Yes, I'm well aware that much was going on in Europe. On the other hand one should not be so quick to dismiss the impact of the ARW. And by the same token, one should not overly emphasize its impact. My point, and it isn't directed at you or anybody in particular, is that to properly speak about what changes would occur with an altered history, one must start at the precise point of divergence. Obviously this forum leaves much to be desired for such an endeavor.

 

Here's an example. Britain had made an alliance with the indian tribes west of the colonies, said alliance to guarantee no more westward expansion. What impact does that have on the American Colonies, Britain, and thus Europe? Is the alliance honored after the fact?

 

Example two. France undoubtedly finds itself in a weaker position v Britain. Does this weaken the monarch such that concessions are made to the people? If so, how would that impact events that led to the revolution in 1789 if at all?

 

Wartime debt. Much of the American independence movement had at its root the French and Indian War and who was going to pay for it. Does Britain punish the Colonies for all the new debt acquired some of which is owed to France? Does Britain repay France or does that become another point of antaganism between the two countries?

 

Many other such examples of historical divergence must, imo, be taken into account before one attempts to state what history might have been 20, 40, 60 years down the road.

[swerve]

You're making a fundamental mistake about the nature of British government at the time. Georges name had to be on the proclamation, just as the President of Germany signs their treaties. But the proclamation itself, in its text, makes it clear it was issued "by and with the advice of our Privy Council" - which in effect meant the government. It's the same with our laws nowadays. They go out with Elizabeth Windsors signature on the bottom, but she doesn't make them, & doesn't have much choice about whether to sign them. George had more say than she does, but nowhere near as much as you (&, I suspect, most Americans) imagine.

 

Britain in the second half of the 18th century was commonly referred to by contemporary commentators as a political paradox: a monarchical republic (and they used that term, among others). It had the forms of a monarchy, but functioned as a republic, as, of course, it still does, and as almost every other monarchy now operates. George had influence and authority, and was treated with deference, but so was the Stadthouder of the Dutch Republic - as he (& everyone else) knew very well. He didn't run the country. In 1775, Lord North did.

 

The colonies did not initially seek independence: the declaration came well after the rebellion began, & might perhaps have been averted by different British policy. Retraction from the declaration of independence, in return for a cessation of hostilities, and the accomplishment of at least the pre-rebellion demands, would doubtless have been seen as failure by some, but certainly not by all. A sizable proportion of the population had supported the British government throughout the war, & many others had tried to ride it out without committing to either side. They - and between them they were probably a majority - would have welcomed it.

 

I agree with you that a different result to the rebellion could have affected politics in Europe, & would certainly have made a huge difference in the long term. What I disagree with is the assumption that it would necessarily have produced a dramatic & immediate change in the course of European history. Perhaps, perhaps not.

 

Your specific discussion points are all good ones, but the only one which affects the likelihood of the French revolution happening on schedule is the impact on France. In fact, Louis did make concessions. Convening the Estates-General was a huge concession, but necessitated by his need to raise more money, the inadequacy of the existing tax structure, & the resistance of the nobility & the parlements to change which would threaten their privileges. The times they were a-changing, & Louis was being carried along by them. A different outcome to the American war might have made his position even worse, perhaps even initiated a revolution earlier.

[DKTanker]

The colonies did not initially seek independence: the declaration came well after the rebellion began, & might perhaps have been averted by different British policy.

Not much after the rebellion started. Keep in mind that the rebellion was centered in New England from the begining. If we take the Battles of Lexington and Concord, consensus start of the rebellion as the start date, we have April 19, 1775 and then just a bit over a year later the Declaration of Independence is ratified. It took those 15 months, and the victory at Boston, to bring 12 of the colonies along (New York initially abstained).

 

Retraction from the declaration of independence, in return for a cessation of hostilities, and the accomplishment of at least the pre-rebellion demands, would doubtless have been seen as failure by some, but certainly not by all. A sizable proportion of the population had supported the British government throughout the war, & many others had tried to ride it out without committing to either side. They - and between them they were probably a majority - would have welcomed it.

What has any of that to do with 1782? Moreover, I don't see how either side could back down. There was a huge amount of distrust among the Colonists due in large part to the Intolerable Acts of 1774 and then the Proclamation of 1775 following the Battle of Bunker Hill which declared all rebels as traitors and subject to execution. So the Colonists weren't going to back down. As they saw it, they had nothing to gain and their very lives to lose. And as we now know, Britain was never going to back down until forced to.

 

Understanding of what was going on is a two way street. I do know that George was adament that the rebellion be put down while at the same time there were back benchers in parliment who were quite open to the idea of disunion. However I think the understanding of the grave mistrust of the British Government held by the Colonists still isn't fully appreciated by many Brits. You included?

 

Your specific discussion points are all good ones, but the only one which affects the likelihood of the French revolution happening on schedule is the impact on France. In fact, Louis did make concessions. Convening the Estates-General was a huge concession, but necessitated by his need to raise more money, the inadequacy of the existing tax structure, & the resistance of the nobility & the parlements to change which would threaten their privileges. The times they were a-changing, & Louis was being carried along by them. A different outcome to the American war might have made his position even worse, perhaps even initiated a revolution earlier.

We do know this, without an American independence there is no Thomas Jefferson fomenting revolution in France. I don't see how a failed rebellion in America makes Louis' position weaker on the home front. On the other hand, it does make France's position v Britain a bit less tennable.

 

As for the effects of a failed rebellion 3000 miles away, an assassination in 1914 sparked the war to end all wars.

[swerve]

...Understanding of what was going on is a two way street. I do know that George was adament that the rebellion be put down while at the same time there were back benchers in parliment who were quite open to the idea of disunion. However I think the understanding of the grave mistrust of the British Government held by the Colonists still isn't fully appreciated by many Brits. You included?

 

As I keep saying, it wasn't up to George. Lord North & his allies in Parliament decided policy. George was an influential lobbyist, no more.

 

You keep on about the colonists as if they were all of the same opinion. One of the things that rapidly emerges from any study of the war is that a large proportion of them (though clearly a proportion which varied from place to place) were steadfastly pro-British throughout. If the war had been better run, & the loyalists not let down so consistently, we might now remember it as more of a civil war in which the British army merely aided loyal colonists in suppressing a rebellion. BTW, the version of the war taught in British schools is rather pro-American.

 

We do know this, without an American independence there is no Thomas Jefferson fomenting revolution in France. I don't see how a failed rebellion in America makes Louis' position weaker on the home front. On the other hand, it does make France's position v Britain a bit less tennable.

 

Jefferson may have tried to stir things up, but I doubt the discontented peasantry & the Paris mob even knew who he was, let alone were influenced by him. Only the bourgeoisie would have heard what he said.

 

The "failed" rebellion makes Louis weaker at home because he'd have fought an expensive war and had nothing to show for it, so there'd be even more disgruntlement than there was at his expensive victory.

 

As for the effects of a failed rebellion 3000 miles away, an assassination in 1914 sparked the war to end all wars.

 

That's a very good example indeed of how butterflies need the right conditions. The Austrians were looking for an excuse, & Gavrilo Princip provided them with one. If they hadn't wanted a war anyway, his actions wouldn't have started one. If the plot had (as such a half-baked plan deserved to) flopped harmlessly with the Austrians not even noticing it, there would very probably still have been a war, as soon as the Austrians could find another excuse. Princip was a spark, but sparks are two a penny: others had already built a bonfire & poured petrol on it. I'm arguing that France was like that in the 1780s.