Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The American colonies LOSE their struggle for Independence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I feel the AWI is being given way too much credit in influencing the French Revolution. Other than the obvious bankrupting of the nation, I cannot see how it affected France politically or even less, culturally. The French people already had a very long list of grievances besides the obvious disparities in the caste system between the haves and have-not. There is good evidence indicating Louis XVI was considering steps to alieviate some of the core issues, many in his political entourage were openly advocating a parliamentary monarchy, which could have possibly diffused the tension, but he would refuse this key concession, and so the rest is history.

    As for the AWI, even up to the Battle of Saratoga, the pro-Tory sentiment in the colonies was still quite high, more so in the larger metropolitan areas. There also many within the Continental Congress and Army who still wished to remain British subjects, but with some concessions from King George, which never came. Without an outside source of weapons, uniforms , and especially money, I cannot see how the rebellion is kept afloat. Many easily forget that before direct intervention of the French, France was secretly sending these extremely important materiels, making victory at Saratoga possible in the first place.

    Had the AWI been lost, I suspect certain of the more well known rebellious leaders such as Washignton and those now regarded as the "Founding Fathers" would have probably been arrested for treason, and many possibly executed, or sentenced to prison and their properties confiscated. Others may have had all their property confiscated and maybe banished or in the least live out their lives completely destitute. I think this could have spurred a migration west by those wishing to preserve their own personal independece from the King, going west of the Appalachains or Mississippi River and out of reach of British rule, at least for the time being.

    The French revolution would have happened regardless.
    Last edited by asterix; 24 Jan 10, 04:29.
    You'll live, only the best get killed.

    -General Charles de Gaulle

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by asterix View Post
      I feel the AWI is being given way too much credit in influencing the French Revolution. Other than the obvious bankrupting of the nation, I cannot see how it affected France politically or even less, culturally. The French people already had a very long list of grievances besides the obvious disparities in the caste system between the haves and have-not. There is good evidence indicating Louis XVI was considering steps to alieviate some of the core issues, many in his political entourage were openly advocating a parliamentary monarchy, which could have possibly diffused the tension, but he would refuse this key concession, and so the rest is history.

      As for the AWI, even up to the Battle of Saratoga, the pro-Tory sentiment in the colonies was still quite high, more so in the larger metropolitan areas. There also many within the Continental Congress and Army who still wished to remain British subjects, but with some concessions from King George, which never came. Without an outside source of weapons, uniforms , and especially money, I cannot see how the rebellion is kept afloat. Many easily forget that before direct intervention of the French, France was secretly sending these extremely important materiels, making victory at Saratoga possible in the first place.

      Had the AWI been lost, I suspect certain of the more well known rebellious leaders such as Washignton and those now regarded as the "Founding Fathers" would have probably been arrested for treason, and many possibly executed, or sentenced to prison and their properties confiscated. Others may have had all their property confiscated and maybe banished or in the least live out their lives completely destitute. I think this could have spurred a migration west by those wishing to preserve their own personal independece from the King, going west of the Appalachains or Mississippi River and out of reach of British rule, at least for the time being.

      The French revolution would have happened regardless.
      Perhaps but does the FR happen as or even about when it did? At best I think not. In addition to punishing Spain, France would also suffer in the subsequent treaty. Depending on the sanctions imposed French wrath may have been directed more against Britain than internally.

      Regards,
      Dennis
      If stupid was a criminal offense Sea Lion believers would be doing life.

      Shouting out to Half Pint for bringing back the big mugs!

      Comment


      • #18
        France would not have been bankrupted by the trickle of aid that had been smuggled in by 1777, and that in itself would have delayed the Revolution in France. The example of a successful AWI would also have slowed things down.

        Yes, a massive displacement of Colonists would have followed a defeat, and would have lead to a substantial English-speaking population in the Louisiana territory, and one with a radical viewpoint as well, and becoming French citizens... hmmm...

        Perhaps a more controlled French Revolution, influenced by Jefferson and Franklin more than the likes of Marat and Robespierre?
        French becomes the new language of the Constituion and free-markets, and minimal Government?
        Napoleon reaches his zenith as a great General, rather than a failed Emperor?
        Europe itself shrugs off the aristocracy well before the First Wolrd War forces it to do so?

        Of all the cans of worms we have opened here, this one looks like the hardest to sort out, in the long run.
        "Why is the Rum gone?"

        -Captain Jack

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
          Of all the cans of worms we have opened here, this one looks like the hardest to sort out, in the long run.
          Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily.- Napoleon

          It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation.- Herman Melville

          Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

          BORG

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by D1J1 View Post
            If America concedes defeat, as proposed in the orignial post, these are the changes I see.

            NO French Revolution. The spreading of seeds of a republic are easier for the monarch to control so the French Revolution does not occur.

            Regards,
            Dennis
            If American Revolution was one of the triggers of the french one, there were much more important ones which triggered it.

            - Philosophers of Age of Enlightenment, like Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montesquieu (don't forget that He influenced a lot the American Constitution)

            - The general discontent of the french population after the seven Years
            war defeat.

            - the food shortage around 1782 1783

            à vaincre sans péril, on triomphe sans gloire (triumph without peril brings no glory) P. Corneille

            Le probleme avec les cons, c'est qu'il ne se fatiguent jamais
            (The problem with Pr.cks, is that they never get tired ) Michel Audiard

            Comment


            • #21
              According to The Oxford History of the French Revolution France was already in a lot of debt from previous wars. The French economist at the time, Turgot, opposed intervention on the grounds that it would a) make financial recovery incredibly difficult and b) do little to hurt Great Britain. Time would prove him right.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Tuor View Post
                I'm suspicious of scenarios that write out an event and/or changes in world history from one event. The American revolution was one, but by far not the only direct and indirect influence on that seminal event. Even without America's influence and the negative effect on French finances there was still general European historical developments (economic, social, and that of the Enlightenment and the philosophs). And might Napoleon's genius well have expressed itself in some other way, military or otherwise?

                I also wonder whether the growth of nationalism in the 19th Century would have been more then somewhat delayed.
                In general I agree that one must be careful about the seminal event in history but in this case I don't agree.

                Without the example of the successful American Revolution, I don't believe that the French revolution would have occuredwhen it did. No French Revolution, no Bonaparte as Emeperor. Even as a brilliant beneral, Napoleon would not have changed history as he did in Eutope, IMO.

                No Bonaparte, then no Iron Duke having such strong influence over the UK after Waterloo so even though still in possession of Americn colonies, the British martial history would not have been the same.
                "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
                George Mason
                Co-author of the Second Amendment
                during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by DARKPLACE View Post
                  Can America be subdued. Well, in theory yes. Firstly by a compromise prior to the shooting starting.

                  Secondly if the French stay out then there is the possibility that the British can either capture or wear down Washingtons army to the point that a negociated peace or surrender is attractive. Remember that for much of the war there was a sizable loyal population that were never really utilised by the British and that in the intial stages independance was a minority view.

                  If you have the first option. then the odds are that American developement will follow roughly the lines of Canada expansion west will be slower, relationships with the indians "might" be better, personally I doubt that though, the people on the ground are going west pretty much regardless of what might be decided by London. But it is a possibility.

                  If its come to shooting then it depends on the way the war ends. a negociated settlement if amicable might mean that the scenario above is followed. An enforced or punitive peace might, probably will bring on a rebellion later.

                  An American defeat and American reactions are going to depend on British behavior during and after the war.

                  Its also possible that you could get an American victory after which America gets what it initially wanted representation in parliament and settles down to become a good and happy part of the Empire. But in control of its own affairs. Most unlikely but still possible.

                  Theres a lot of variables there. possibly too many to get a clear line as to exactly what the end result would be.as the personal views of the posters are going to be effected by their nationality.
                  This is what should have happened if Lord North wasn't such a dunderhead. It was desired in some quarters as well. If you go to Holkham Hall in Norfolk where the Earl of Coke resided/ resides there is a portrait of Washington in one of the corridors. Coke was outraged that force should be used against people who were basically talking the same enlightenment language as many over here were in terms of liberty and so forth. He would not toast the King in his house and instead toasted Washington. Not a irrelevant gesture in those days. North should have sat down and sorted it out. They were Englishmen over there after all.

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X