In 1775, the Eastern Colonies of British America attempted to revolt against King George III after the colonists were tired of all the taxes from the Seven Years' War. The winter of 1777-78 saw the collapse of George Washington's army due to the lack of supplies and infighting between the "Founding Fathers" as to what would become of the new country. On 18 January 1778, Washington surrendered at Philadelphia to Lord Cornwallis and his army of 45,800 soldiers. He and everyone who signed the American Declaration of Independence were tried and executed for treason throughout 1778 and 1779, with Washington being the last to be executed on 2 November 1779. But, what if by sheer luck, had Washington's Revolt succeeded? What influence would this United States have on the world stage?
DBWI: What if General Washington's revolt succeeded?
- Thread starter James the AH Fan
- Start date
- Status
Ugh, not this again. It would tear itself apart by the middle of the nineteenth century if it could survive to that point. Their government was- deliberately mind you- too weak to do a damn thing. It needed a supermajority of the states to agree and had no means of federal taxation. Add in the rise of abolition and the rich but fragile south would turn their guns on them.
Ooh, or the spanish empire gobbles up a wealthy, socially conservative, new colony in Virginia.
If they're exceedingly lucky, we'll say they try for French help and Louis XVI, a man famous for shutting down the nobility after his Predecessor let them have it back, for whatever god forsaken reason decides to take on a deathly war and screw his economy, AND THEN the Americans actually fix their broken government. It becomes an industrial power realizing that slavery isnt gonna work. Congratulations, you now have a secondary power on the east coast that cant expand because of the British and Spanish empires taking up the next two thirds of a continent.
Ooh, or the spanish empire gobbles up a wealthy, socially conservative, new colony in Virginia.
If they're exceedingly lucky, we'll say they try for French help and Louis XVI, a man famous for shutting down the nobility after his Predecessor let them have it back, for whatever god forsaken reason decides to take on a deathly war and screw his economy, AND THEN the Americans actually fix their broken government. It becomes an industrial power realizing that slavery isnt gonna work. Congratulations, you now have a secondary power on the east coast that cant expand because of the British and Spanish empires taking up the next two thirds of a continent.
I think that, even if it did break up, a New York+New Jersey+Pennsylvania+Delaware+Further Canada union could still become an important secondary power on its own. After all, New York is the real capital of one of the most powerful countries in the world (even if Parliament still sits in London).
In essence the revolt continued until the reforms of 1850 restructred the Imperial system. Aside from taxes there was the attempt of the Crown to restrict settlement to the eastern seaboard. Ontio, Kaintuck, the Tennesse basin, Detoit, the Illinois plains ect... were all susposed to be off limits to immigrants and settlement and monopoly of licensed merchants in trade. The booming population of the Atlantic colonies, migrants disgruntled with the Crowns policy and failure of their revolution, & the subsequent slavers revolt of the 1830s, all meant a steady and ultimately unstoppable migration to the Mississippi & beyond. Ultimately the economic benefits of settlement won and the Great Removal or Great Dying of the Creeks, Cheokees, Shanee, & other nations occured. So, while the Crown won the battle of the 1770s it lost the ongoing war of the next six decades.
I think what you mean by success needs to be clarified. Long term independence, especially under The articles of confederation, would be extremely hard. A stronger constitution would be needed from the beginning for there to be any chance at that.
But perhaps if some sort of accord could be reached between the continental congress and parliament, maybe a similar arrangement that the Netherlands had with their imperial masters; Have parliament tell the congress how much tax money they expect and then let the colonies sort out the specific taxes themselves in their own assemblies?
That would satisfy their original demands and not cause a rift between the colonists and the crown that lead to all the little backwoods rebellions that followed Washington's failure
But perhaps if some sort of accord could be reached between the continental congress and parliament, maybe a similar arrangement that the Netherlands had with their imperial masters; Have parliament tell the congress how much tax money they expect and then let the colonies sort out the specific taxes themselves in their own assemblies?
That would satisfy their original demands and not cause a rift between the colonists and the crown that lead to all the little backwoods rebellions that followed Washington's failure
It would probably spread through the other colonies along the Atlantic coast... how many were there? 16? 17?
You might easily see a domino effect into Quebec if France had taken the initiative to fund his rebellion.
If France had taken Quebec in this hypothetical war, what effect would this have on modern day Louisiana?
You might easily see a domino effect into Quebec if France had taken the initiative to fund his rebellion.
If France had taken Quebec in this hypothetical war, what effect would this have on modern day Louisiana?
A hypothetical American state on the east coast (assuming it stays democratic) might inspire revolutionaries in Spain, meaning an earlier Spanish Revolution and overthrow of the Spanish Monarchy.
That's true, but what I don't think gets talked about enough is what would've happened if Washington had succeeded and the rebels afterwards managed to put aside their differences long enough to work out a stronger republican constitution, like the ones we see in Greece or Australia today. I have no idea what that constitution would actually look like--this is all wild speculation here--but it could hypothetically work.
Now, the independent, stronger US certainly isn't going to want to stay in one spot forever, trapped on the Atlantic coast. After all, even during the Revolt Americans were moving west to settle Ohio. In the case of an independent US, I think it's pretty safe to say that an alliance with Britain is off the table in the early years--too much bad blood there. But I also doubt America's ability to mobilize a large enough army to conquer any of the British holdings in America that are left over (which we'll call "Laurentia" for simplicity's sake), which means America must say goodbye to the OTL province of Columbia, the Pudget Sound and Vancouver City. I predict the US would go south instead, probably with British backing, to put down the Mexican Empire--a real thorn in the Crown's side IOTL. We could get from this an American Tejas (an idea not very well explored IOTL, I must admit), and possibly even the Californias under the old Stars and Stripes or divided between them and the Brits.
Slavery's a whole other deal. While I'd love to see Abraham Lincoln (first Prime Minister of the Dominion of America IOTL) leading the nation through a civil war as he did in this timeline, the slavery deal is likely to flare up even sooner here, given the South's greater voice in the nation, something that was heavily offset IOTL by the northern territories of the Dominion. I'd say the 1850s is the point of no return for civil war, though the tail end of the '40s is my best guess. Britain would hopefully aid the US to put down the Southern rebellion by now (I'd say seventy years is long enough to forgive and forget, right?) and stop it from being drawn out too long... Ooh! Great idea here--what if the civil war becomes the catalyst for an earlier Crimean War-type conflict? Russians invading from Alaska would be possible here, assuming Britain doesn't buy it as IOTL, and you could see a crippled Mexico siding with the Ruskies just to get back at the US...
There's a lot of potential here, just need to get past that first hurdle of getting rid of the AoC. Personally, I say we do that by saving Ben Franklin from his untimely demise in 1777 IOTL. If there's anyone who could get the United States of America on track to be at least kinda sorta successful, it's him.
Shoot, looks like we might have one of those "Sons of Liberty" anarcho-republicans in here...
You probably shouldn't be, considering parliament in New York declared y'all domestic terrorists in, like, the 1950s.
Proud of what? Fighting for slavery? Treason? The Patriot Party has consistently voted for things that would aid in the genocide of aborigines, for maintaining segregation, and even back to the rebellion, would tar and feather loyalists and anglicans. Real bloody free there, arent ya?
One timeline I've read of this suggested it would eventually lead to Britain no longer being a superpower. I don't think it'd be enough
Dolan
Banned
Let's be fair here, Lincoln drafted freed slaves from the Southern Rebel Dominions to be repatriated and given education as well as a plot of land for every adult male in South Africa.
Yes, the King's Negroes were technically "Returned Home to Africa", but instead of sending them back to their original homeland of West Africa, they were settled in the South Africa, clashed with the native Africans there, and thus it was the start of the still ongoing Zulu Wars.
Letting the King's Negroes to settle in North America would be much better in the long run.
We saw what happened in France when the lower and middle classes rose up in 1798, a brief republic was established, and soon it split apart into bickering factions and the Bourbons were back in power by 1815. I can only see Washington's Columbia splintering into bickering factions (I can't see Canada and Virginia being content with each other, look at how those provinces are today), and the British simply roll back in and reestablish rule, faster than the French Civil War.
aaronupright
Banned
Which TL am I in? American Texas and California? You mean the OTL provinces of Victoria and Queensland? Which cover more or less the same territory’s?
I wonder how Australia develops. Maybe we avoid “Britain gave her beloved eldest son the responsibility for his newborn siblings ” policies of OTL*. Doubt Australia would be the advanced first world country it is today had London not decided to essentially delegate the task of managing the Antipodes to the US.
*Gladstone’s actual words from the “Winds of change speech”, he never said “big brother” the words after the policy is remembered.
I wonder how Australia develops. Maybe we avoid “Britain gave her beloved eldest son the responsibility for his newborn siblings ” policies of OTL*. Doubt Australia would be the advanced first world country it is today had London not decided to essentially delegate the task of managing the Antipodes to the US.
*Gladstone’s actual words from the “Winds of change speech”, he never said “big brother” the words after the policy is remembered.
Given that the Whigs, Labor, Conservatives, Marxocialists, and Greens occasionally accuse each other of the very same things it becomes difficult to tell if you are trying to insult his beliefs or legitimize them...
I assume that by the "Marxocialists", you mean the International Socialist Party (Marxist)? Also, you are forgetting about all of the other parties (yeah, they get less votes, but they are influential as coalition-fillers)
- Status