View Topic

After a series of inflammatory events and armed combat during the early 1770s, the Contiental Congress of the United States of America declared their independence from Great Britain on July 4, 1776...

Several years later, in June of 1778, the war had not gone well for the rebellious colonists. The British held portions of New England, including New York City and Boston, and had captured Philadelphia, forcing the Continental Congress to flee the city. The Continental Army, having nearly been wiped out by harsh winters, disease, and malnourishment, only existed thanks to the blunders of several British commanders. Wanting to take advantage of this situation and end the rebellion quickly before France and other European powers could take advantage of it, the British sent the Carlisle Peace Commission to directly negotiate a peace with the Continental Congress.

The Commission was empowered to make concessions unheard of at that time, including the repeal of all Acts of Parliament after 1763 the colonists found objectionable, a general pardon to all rebels, the right to autonomy and self-governance, and even representation in Parliament. Weary after years of desperate struggle and content that their original demands from 1775 were being met, the Continental Congress dropped their demand for independence, instead agreeing to the terms offered, reaffirming their loyalty to the Crown, and concluding the war.

What could have been the United States of America instead continued on as a realm of the British Empire...

The question is, where would we be now, 236 years later? How would history have developed differently from that point, and how would life be different?

Topic inspired by this advertisement campaign.

Well... Awesome food for thought. Perhaps the largest changes would be that the British never would have made the deal for the Louisiana Purchase and by extension the purchase of Alaska. That also means most of the southwest from Texas to California would be a part of Mexico and Hawaii would be independent. Also the Civil War would have instead been a war of succession from the British Empire which would have garnered far more foreign aid and the South most probably would have won their Independence long before the US itself declared independence along with most other British holdings in the mid 20th century.

Any one of those aspects could require tons of research and days of debate to still not know the whole of what could have been.

It's interesting that we both predict a Southern War of succession, but disagree with the outcome. I think that war would have came earlier than the Civil War did, seeing how the Civil War was delayed by a series of compromises regarding slavery that I don't think would have been tolerated within the British Empire...so maybe 1820s or 1830s? It may have somewhat more foreign support since slavery was more accepted in that period and other nations would want to weaken Britain, but I don't think it would be enough...I think militias from the abolitionist colonies combined with experienced regulars that Britain would keep around to quickly crush a second rebellion would...well, quickly do just that.

Note: Yeah, I know the Civil War was supposedly over states' rights, but what do you think the states wanted the right to do?

And I think the consequences to the South would be devastating...viewing this as betrayal of the 1778 agreement and having the backing of the abolitionist and loyalist forces in the northern colonies, I think this time Britain would come down hard on the south, perhaps even resuming direct control of their affairs for a period of time. Of course, I'm also assuming that the colonies would choose to self-govern through a loose confederation under a government similar to the Articles of Confederation and not a stronger government that encouraged compromise like the Constitution. This would essentially result in 13 colonies that would govern their own affairs and probably turn on each other over this issue.

It's hard to say about the Louisiana Purchase, since it's entirely possible that the entire French Revolution leading to the rise of Napoleon may have been delayed or avoided had France not been involved in the American Revolution. It's possible that the territory would have remained in Spanish hands, although obviously Spain wasn't terribly interested in colonizing it...they could have sold it to Britain later on or ceded it in a future war, considering that Spain and Britain were the only two remaining European powers with large areas of land in the hemisphere by that point.

Agreed to disagree

My belief is that Spanish and French Support for a Free South or even a controlled South would have been quick to come with the chance to truly hurt the British Empire and the powerful presence it was amassing here in the new world. A loyal French ally or territory in what would be a combined South plus the Louisiana Territories plus Quebec to surround their foe would have been too important to let go. And lets not forget Spanish Florida, a territory they would likely have fought to keep with the British in control rather than the Americans. None of the European powers realized the future of the beast they failed to cage.

Funny that you did not argue over the fate of the southwest. Neither Texas nor California would have been strong enough to win independence.

However, what we're forgetting is that French military power in the new world was quickly declining in this period. France failed to crush a slave revolt in Haiti, resulting in that country's independence in 1802, and that was with Napoleon shuttling in tens of thousands of troops to quail the rebellion...would Louis XVI have cared as much had the French Revolution not happened?

Which leaves Spain, which is a more open-ended question...many of the events that led to the downfall of the Spanish Empire are due to events during the Napoleonic Wars. My guess is they would have held on to those territories several decades longer, before independence movements finally liberated them. Perhaps most of those territories would have ended up as part of Mexico or another, independent nation breaking off from Spain. Or again, it could have been ceded to Britain at the conclusion of a war...during this time period, wars war often fought over other areas, with the West being an afterthought. France ceding everything west of the Mississippi River to Britain to conclude the Seven Years Wars (or the French and Indian War) is an example of this.

At the end of the day, I agree that all of the European powers underestimated America, but they also had little value for the land covered by the Louisiana Purchase, which is why it was sold so cheaply at all...other than New Orleans it was sparsely populated and seemed to have little in the way of mineral or agricultural wealth. Their priorities were simply elsewhere at the time, particularly in India and Asia.

But yes, agree to disagree. These sorts of discussions are fun though...it's been awhile since I've had an invigorating discussion of history.

Well... Awesome food for thought. Perhaps the largest changes would be that the British never would have made the deal for the Louisiana Purchase and by extension the purchase of Alaska. That also means most of the southwest from Texas to California would be a part of Mexico and Hawaii would be independent. Also the Civil War would have instead been a war of succession from the British Empire which would have garnered far more foreign aid and the South most probably would have won their Independence long before the US itself declared independence along with most other British holdings in the mid 20th century.

Any one of those aspects could require tons of research and days of debate to still not know the whole of what could have been.

Alaska: most probably not bought, the Russians would control Alaska and maybe parts of what is now western Canada.
Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, California and New Mexico, and surrounding areas: Probably part of Mexico or their own self-governing state.
Hawaii: Probably a British, Mexican, Russian or Japanese territory. It holds strategic value in having many harbors that can keep fleets that can sail anywhere in the Pacific, and with air carriers, it's an important strategic asset.
Civil War: Probably would not happen, because the British Empire was already starting to get rid of slaves and slaves had been made illegal in the UK early in 1807. There was a strong anti-slavery movement from the religious Christians as early as the 1760s in the UK, and a lot of countries had also abolished slavery by the early 1800s. If anything the Civil War might have been a second attempted revolutionary war.


This isn't the interesting thing. The interesting thing is the larger picture. If the American Revolution failed, the French Revolution would have probably still happened, but not with the aid of American Revolutionary generals and foreign volunteers. The Reign of Terror could have ended very differently, and there is a question of Napoleon not even rising to power. If Napoleon had risen to power, we can assume that his armies would probably still rampage over Europe, but this time the British would be able to draw from American draftees as well to fight on the continent. The question, as Moot pointed out, is Spain. Would the Spanish colonies revolt if the American Revolution failed? I think so. The British were prodding at the Rio de la Plata a few times, and the militias were the ones that drove them off, giving power to the people and embarrassing the garrisons. If the Rio de la Plata revolted, one can assume that areas with less direct contact with Spain (Chile, Peru, Paraguay), would probably revolt as well if the Rio de la Plata area succeeded. Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America is a different question. If Napoleon did take over Spain, and the River Plate area revolted earlier, Mexico might have revolted, and so would the other territories.




I got this far in when I realized why I hate "What If?"s, there's too many variables, too many strings.
History would be different, that's what, and Africa might not be suffering the aftermath of a colonial invasion and European patented pull out.

That's the beauty of it though. There is no right or wrong, all we can do is advance our humble speculation.

NB: France got destroyed by the British and Spanish in the Peninsula War, their desire to do anything in the early 1800's against Britain would most likely be muted. :p

Although it seems that France's defeat had more to do with the outbreak of guerrilla warfare in Spain against Napolean and his brother more than British intervention in the war.

A lot of people think that, but considering how badly the Guerilla's were doing up until the intervention of British Rifle divisions in the Portuguese mountains, it doesn't actually hold true. Whilst it might sound like I'm 'bigging up' British involvement, British redcoats and blackcoats played huge roles in boosting Spanish morale and training an effective fighting force out of what had just been a bunch of motivated but not particularly well-organised freedom fighters.

Also you cannot even attempt to make that statement when every major battle in the Peninsula War was won by British blood, and most historical documents note the incompetency of the Spanish military at the time I've actually done work on the Peninsula War for the historical portion of my degree, so it's an area of some speciality for me.

There is an extremely interesting book called For Want of a Nail that explores how the world would look like if the American revolution failed. Unlike most alternate history books this one is written as a college history textbook in the alternate timeline.

Surprises include a bilingual Mexican state that encompasses the southwestern US up to and including Alaska.

That sounds like a fascinating read! I've added it to me wishlist of books.