What If: America Lost the War For Independence

[lordroel]

What If: America Lost the War For Independence



What if America’s most patriotic holiday was not July 4, but December 25?

It could have been the day the British crown got its best Christmas gift ever. All it would have taken was a simple slip by a colonial rebel. His rifle, crashing to the frozen ground, discharges… the shot echoing clearly through the crisp, clear winter night. On the river banks, the alarm sounds. The Hessian garrison at Trenton rouses to its posts. Washington’s troops are trapped crossing the Delaware.

The British counterattack drives the rebel forces from their encampment at Valley Forge. George Washington is captured. The Continental Army evaporates. The rebellion is crushed. What would life be like today, in a world in which there never was a United States of America?

There are a multitude of quite plausible scenarios in which the colonials might have lost their war with the mighty British Empire. After all, Washington’s strategy was to win by not losing. The aim was to hold on until the British gave up or the French stepped in. That strategy frayed nerves repeatedly at the Continental Congress—from the retreat at Long Island to the near disaster at the Battle of Monmouth, to Benedict Arnold’s betrayal at West Point. Washington came too close to losing his army on more than one occasion.

If, in any these instances the Continental Army had been destroyed—not just defeated—would anyone today be celebrating the signing of the American Declaration of Independence? The answer, most likely, is yes. But the path to independence would have been far bloodier—for both nations. Here is why.

Oddly, American independence worked in Great Britain’s favor. In practical terms (and Canada aside) Washington’s triumph gave the crown one less continent to worry about in its decade long struggle with France for the mastery of Europe. With the American Revolution ended, the pushy colonials looked after themselves and stopped trying to snag Canada. Better yet, they were pretty good trading partners. All this was to the good for the crown, because the British could focus their energies on the looming life-and-death scrap with France.

Now, let’s replay the tape. Instead of America being a non-issue, the British win and are forced to treat the defeated colonists like a garrison state. Decades of endless guerilla warfare follow—draining the British treasury.

And, make no mistake—even if the French had not dropped a lot of cash helping out the colonial cause, Louis was probably headed for the guillotine sooner or later anyway—and then came the real threat: Napoleon.

In this situation, North America becomes a major theater of conflict in the Napoleonic wars, not just a sideshow. No longer a struggle between freedom and tyranny, it is a war for supremacy between two imperial powers. It’s the kind of war in which the blood really flows. Everywhere. And in the New World, the resulting brawl for supremacy would have made the French and Indian Wars look like peace talks.

When all the killing was done, America would still have been somebody’s just another bloodied colony. And worse, the rest of the world might not have made out any better. Maybe, Napoleon would have never had his Waterloo.

Yet, sooner or later liberty would have triumphed. John Locke, Patrick Henry and others had already lit the fire of freedom in the minds of men. The principles of natural law and natural rights had been articulated, succinctly and supremely in the Declaration. It was a document that could not be forgotten, even in (temporary) defeat. There is little likelihood that the flame of freedom that it sparked and fanned could ever be fully extinguished.

Want proof? Well, the idea of liberty did survive Napoleon, and the American Civil War, and the Great War, and Hitler and more. Freedom is hard to kill. And, eventually, America would have had its 4th of July in one form or another.

But, I like this form: a great nation that reaches from sea to shining sea; an exceptional nation that serves as an example to all of the world that sovereignty of the people is not just novel idea, it is the salvation of mankind.

With all its warts, with all its stumbles forward and all its backsliding, America still shines as a beautiful and noble idea. I am glad General Washington won at Trenton, that he prevailed at Yorktown, and that Independence Day today stands for something that is worthy of our admiration.

This article was published on the website The National Interest and was called: July 4th Nightmare: What If America Lost the War For Independence?

[stevep]

Of course it all depends on the circumstances. I have read that as late as that year the British commanders were still looking for a moderate peace but didn't seem to realise that to get this they needed to crush the rebel army so that the extremists will be defeated and others might look for a compromise. In this case you might see peace restored fairly quickly and possibly some agreement whereby the colonists contribute something to their own defence rather than continuing to get a free ride. This is likely to include increasing rights for the colonies as time goes on. Your unlikely to see a merged imperial parliament as the distances are too great for the technology but you might well see an American kingdom gaining total self-government and later full independence sometime in the 19thC.

The earliest option might be if the British authorities stamped down hard on the rebels, preferably in the early 70's and impose law and order then there might not be a serious rebellion. Without the mob attacks, tortures and murders to silent opposition moderates and loyalists might be able to stop things getting so violent. Or simply instead of faffing about the government had stuck with some level of light taxation rather than continually giving in to complaints.

The later the victory comes the more difficult it would be to make it a lasting one. Also the more likely it is that some unrepenant rebels are likely to seek to reopen the conflict at a later stage. From about 1779 once the French and other powers started large scale support of the rebels some form of partition, as occurred OTL, is almost certain, although where the actual boundaries were could vary greatly.

There is a good point that such future unrest could make the defeat of Napoleon more difficult and possibly lead to the French winning a lasting domination of Europe. [Quite possibly then followed by them controlling N America as well].

Obviously whatever happened in the 1770s the idea of liberty would survive as it existed long before the American revolution and had far wider roots than suggested. Some compromise settlement in say 1777 might even help the reformers in Britain to defeat reaction as they nearly did OTL so you could see a more liberal Europe anyway, although once the French revolution turned on itself there was always the danger of reaction winning on the wider European scale.

  There is some accuracy as well in that an independent US relieved the British of the burden of defending it.  [Which could be seen as a British victory as the British government wanted far less than that.  Just a contribution from the settlers to the cost of their defence].  However it is inaccurate in suggesting there was no American threat to Canada or other British interests in the region.  Also once the US became deeply protectionist much of the trading potential of the region for Britain was lost, as well as the compertition British industry suffered from American dumping.  [Alrthough America wasn't the only power that did this and the primary problem for Britain was the idealogical disasters of laissez faire and of free trade in a deeply protectionist world.]

[lordroel]

Oct 11, 2016 17:11:57 GMT stevep said:

There is a good point that such future unrest could make the defeat of Napoleon more difficult and possibly lead to the French winning a lasting domination of Europe. [Quite possibly then followed by them controlling N America as well].

Especially if the British need to keep a lot of troops as the article says treat the defeated colonists like a garrison state
.

[stevep]

Oct 11, 2016 17:16:00 GMT lordroel said:

Oct 11, 2016 17:11:57 GMT stevep said:

There is a good point that such future unrest could make the defeat of Napoleon more difficult and possibly lead to the French winning a lasting domination of Europe. [Quite possibly then followed by them controlling N America as well].

Especially if the British need to keep a lot of troops as the article says treat the defeated colonists like a garrison state
.

  If that happened definitely.  Not sure it would if the rebellion was defeated fairly quickly, before the rebels gained too much influence. 

  I've often wondered what would have happened if the British government had called the rebels bluff on their famous lie about "No taxation without representation".  If they had said, yes you can have representatation in the London Parliament but you would pay British taxes, which were far, far higher than anything asked of the colonies.  I wonder how many of the rebels would then have been lynched by their own supporters.

PS  I added an additional paragraph to my previous post to address another point.

[lordroel]

Oct 11, 2016 17:19:57 GMT stevep said:

Oct 11, 2016 17:16:00 GMT lordroel said:

Especially if the British need to keep a lot of troops as the article says treat the defeated colonists like a garrison state
.

  I've often wondered what would have happened if the British government had called the rebels bluff on their famous lie about "No taxation without representation".  If they had said, yes you can have representatation in the London Parliament but you would pay British taxes, which were far, far higher than anything asked of the colonies.  I wonder how many of the rebels would then have been lynched by their own supporters.

That would surly help the British. 

[stevep]

Oct 11, 2016 17:21:49 GMT lordroel said:

Oct 11, 2016 17:19:57 GMT stevep said:

  I've often wondered what would have happened if the British government had called the rebels bluff on their famous lie about "No taxation without representation".  If they had said, yes you can have representatation in the London Parliament but you would pay British taxes, which were far, far higher than anything asked of the colonies.  I wonder how many of the rebels would then have been lynched by their own supporters.

That would surly help the British. 

  I suspect so but unfortunately they never tried it.   Might have been the on-going political conflict in Britain at the time.  On one side there was pressure for political reform, including clearing up the rotton boughs and other such issues.  On the other the young king George III was seeking to re-establish the power of the monarchy after the long 'Wigg Suppremercy' where internal political interests had been dominant since the Hanoverians had come to power in 1715.  In part he was the 1st Hanoverian who really thought himself as British rather than German and in part he was influenced by idea of enlightened despotism which was influential in Europe at the time.

  In those circumstances assorted groups might have thought such a challenge to the colonists might have strengthened the position of reformists inside Britain itself.  Which would have been fine by me.  Can't see the colonists accepting such a proposal as it would be so expensive for them, plus with the delay in communications a trans-oceantic Parliament at this time would have been impractical.  However it would have made more likely a settlement where the colonies contributed something to their own defence.  Which would have both helped the treasury and set a useful presicedent.  Also and possibly as importantly relatively moderate reform in Britain could have boosted it further rather than the American and the French revolutions prompting reaction in Britain.

[lordroel]

Oct 12, 2016 14:54:08 GMT stevep said:

Oct 11, 2016 17:21:49 GMT lordroel said:

That would surly help the British. 

  I suspect so but unfortunately they never tried it.   Might have been the on-going political conflict in Britain at the time.  On one side there was pressure for political reform, including clearing up the rotton boughs and other such issues.  On the other the young king George III was seeking to re-establish the power of the monarchy after the long 'Wigg Suppremercy' where internal political interests had been dominant since the Hanoverians had come to power in 1715.  In part he was the 1st Hanoverian who really thought himself as British rather than German and in part he was influenced by idea of enlightened despotism which was influential in Europe at the time.

  In those circumstances assorted groups might have thought such a challenge to the colonists might have strengthened the position of reformists inside Britain itself.  Which would have been fine by me.  Can't see the colonists accepting such a proposal as it would be so expensive for them, plus with the delay in communications a trans-oceantic Parliament at this time would have been impractical.  However it would have made more likely a settlement where the colonies contributed something to their own defence.  Which would have both helped the treasury and set a useful presicedent.  Also and possibly as importantly relatively moderate reform in Britain could have boosted it further rather than the American and the French revolutions prompting reaction in Britain.

Then why did it work for Canada.

[stevep]

Oct 12, 2016 14:55:42 GMT lordroel said:

Oct 12, 2016 14:54:08 GMT stevep said:

  I suspect so but unfortunately they never tried it.   Might have been the on-going political conflict in Britain at the time.  On one side there was pressure for political reform, including clearing up the rotton boughs and other such issues.  On the other the young king George III was seeking to re-establish the power of the monarchy after the long 'Wigg Suppremercy' where internal political interests had been dominant since the Hanoverians had come to power in 1715.  In part he was the 1st Hanoverian who really thought himself as British rather than German and in part he was influenced by idea of enlightened despotism which was influential in Europe at the time.

  In those circumstances assorted groups might have thought such a challenge to the colonists might have strengthened the position of reformists inside Britain itself.  Which would have been fine by me.  Can't see the colonists accepting such a proposal as it would be so expensive for them, plus with the delay in communications a trans-oceantic Parliament at this time would have been impractical.  However it would have made more likely a settlement where the colonies contributed something to their own defence.  Which would have both helped the treasury and set a useful presicedent.  Also and possibly as importantly relatively moderate reform in Britain could have boosted it further rather than the American and the French revolutions prompting reaction in Britain.

Then why did it work for Canada.

 Sorry?  Not sure what you mean?  Canada never elected MPs or had any taxation sent to Britain.  it stayed loyal partly because it was populated mainly by those loyalists determined enough to flee their homes to stay British and partly because the French of Quebec realised they would have better protection for their culture as part of a British colony rather than as part of the US.

  After the failure of the American colonies Britain never again, as far as I'm aware, tried to tax colonies, even to get a contribution for their own defence.  As they achieved self-government the assorted dominions increasingly maintained their own forces but still also relied on British forces even in peace-time to supplement their defence, as well as largely relying on the RN for protection of coasts and trade links.  However from the 2nd Boer war onwards they did increasingly supply volunteers for service in wars in support of Britain.  This occurred somewhat earlier for Indian forces as they were deployed at least as early as the 1830's I think against Mohammud Ali in Syria and later in the Opium wars. 

[lordroel]

Oct 12, 2016 21:24:49 GMT stevep said:

Oct 12, 2016 14:55:42 GMT lordroel said:

Then why did it work for Canada.

 Sorry?  Not sure what you mean?  Canada never elected MPs or had any taxation sent to Britain.  it stayed loyal partly because it was populated mainly by those loyalists determined enough to flee their homes to stay British and partly because the French of Quebec realised they would have better protection for their culture as part of a British colony rather than as part of the US.

My fault.

Wondering if the buterflies are so great we as a result of a failed American revolution will not see a successful French revolution and thus no rise of Napoleon.

[stevep]

Oct 13, 2016 3:37:53 GMT lordroel said:

Oct 12, 2016 21:24:49 GMT stevep said:

 Sorry?  Not sure what you mean?  Canada never elected MPs or had any taxation sent to Britain.  it stayed loyal partly because it was populated mainly by those loyalists determined enough to flee their homes to stay British and partly because the French of Quebec realised they would have better protection for their culture as part of a British colony rather than as part of the US.

My fault.

Wondering if the buterflies are so great we as a result of a failed American revolution will not see a successful French revolution and thus no rise of Napoleon.

  Difficult to tell, especially if the revolution is suppressed pretty quickly, so it has less influence and doesn't drain France with another long and costly war.  France is still likely to have serious debt and an unwillingness to see social and economic changes to resolve the fiscal problems so some social conflict is very likely.  Also surviving rebels, even if its defeated early, might find refuge in France.  [Even more likely if the rebellion lasts longer].

  Even so there were opportunities for the French revolution to be suppressed in the early days, especially if Louis XVI had been decently advised.  This could mean the foillowing wars are avoided or possibly simply build up greater pressure for a later explosion.  Similarly if a Republic is etablished and starts to falter as OTL you are likely to get some sort of military dictator take over but it won't necessarily be Napoleon and whoever does take on that role may not decide to establish a kingdom/empire.

  Another factor is how Britain responded to a French revolution in TTL.  There was strong support for the French revolution in radical and reformist elements in Britain, at least until it got so bloody.  This might be stronger in a Britain which because of events in N America had seen reform itself and possibly might, because of the value of such support, enable the French revolution to stay fairly moderate itself.  Hence you could have a liberal Britain and possibly republican France finding themselves as allies in opposition to the reactionary monarchies of Spain and the east, although Britain as long as it keeps the monarchy and is dominated politically by aristocratic interests, this alliance might be fragile.

  I would suspect that events in France would be fairly similar to OTL but some substantial butterflies could result.

  Steve

PS  I must admit I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been more comments on this thread, especially since some of my comments have been rather controversal.

[lordroel]

Oct 13, 2016 16:35:07 GMT stevep said:

PS  I must admit I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been more comments on this thread, especially since some of my comments have been rather controversal.

That you get with a small forum, not many people who respond to threads.

[doug181]

Depends on how the British react. If they are harsh they will need a large garrison, you could expect trouble. If what happened in Boston happened all over, I would expect continuing trouble. In the southern colonies were large numbers of Scotch -Irish no lovers of Britain

[lordroel]

Oct 19, 2016 22:55:10 GMT doug181 said:

Depends on how the British react. If they are harsh they will need a large garrison, you could expect trouble. If what happened in Boston happened all over, I would expect continuing trouble. In the southern colonies were large numbers of Scotch -Irish no lovers of Britain

Would be strange to see the southern colonies try to go for a second atamept to become Independence will the Northern colonies decide to stay under British control.

[stevep]

Oct 19, 2016 22:55:10 GMT doug181 said:

Depends on how the British react. If they are harsh they will need a large garrison, you could expect trouble. If what happened in Boston happened all over, I would expect continuing trouble. In the southern colonies were large numbers of Scotch -Irish no lovers of Britain

  I suspect that depends on when the revolution is defeated.  Early, especially before 79 and French intervention and probably pretty moderate.  Some of the main ring-leaders and those associated with particularly nasty attrocities will either flee or be hung, or at least imprisoned  but I suspect most others would be allowed to return to civilian life without restrictions provided they kept out of trouble. 

  If it lasted longer then things are likely to be greatly embittered but they a total victory for the loyalists/British is unlikely to occur in those ircumstances.  More likely is a different partition of North America with more staying with Britain.

[lordroel]

Oct 21, 2016 15:21:56 GMT stevep said:

Oct 19, 2016 22:55:10 GMT doug181 said:

Depends on how the British react. If they are harsh they will need a large garrison, you could expect trouble. If what happened in Boston happened all over, I would expect continuing trouble. In the southern colonies were large numbers of Scotch -Irish no lovers of Britain

  I suspect that depends on when the revolution is defeated.  Early, especially before 79 and French intervention and probably pretty moderate.  Some of the main ring-leaders and those associated with particularly nasty attrocities will either flee or be hung, or at least imprisoned  but I suspect most others would be allowed to return to civilian life without restrictions provided they kept out of trouble. 

  If it lasted longer then things are likely to be greatly embittered but they a total victory for the loyalists/British is unlikely to occur in those ircumstances.  More likely is a different partition of North America with more staying with Britain.

I would assume the British would do everything they could to end the American Revolution before the French intervene.