"AWI fails the 13 Colonies stay in the UK" Topic

I am sure this what if has been discussed before but I think this is a fine counter factual to ponder. For what ever reason the American Revolution as we call it here in the States fails, or does not really get a start, regardless the 13 colonies remain part of the British Empire. So how does that impact the world as we know it? Here are some talking points and possible ideas of contention:

No War of 1812 and of course there is never a Louis and Clark expedition as Napoleon would never sell the land to his enemy.

Does Manifest Destiny still take place? Post Waterloo Britain would find itself suddenly able to just take the area of the Louisiana Purchase.

Is there a war with Mexico? Is there an Alamo to remember?

Of course there are multiple wars with the natives. In fact they might even be more brutal with a more determined military presence.

Alaska is still purchased from Russia because with Canada and now the lower part of the North American continent under its domain it would be wrong to not have a complete set.

No American Civil War as slavery is made unlawful in Parliament. Oh there might be some up risings in certain colonial territories but that will be dealt with.

WW I ends much sooner as Britain has the man power of the Americas to call upon right off the bat.

Same goes for WW II and most likely there is not an alliance as you do not have to wait for America to join the fray and of course you have that massive industrial might to call upon right off.

Do the Americas become united enough to demand autonomy as does some many of the UK's other colonial holds post WW II or does not happen because it was Roosevelt and the United States that demanded a dismantling of empire?

And of course we could go on, but I will leave that to you to add or detract upon.

Would there be a French Revolution if the US failed?

With a failed rebellion in the Colonies, France does not intervene in the affair.

This saves the French Monarchy from bankruptcy, obviating the underpinnings of the French Revolution.

With no opportunity for rapid promotion, Napoleon Bonaparte retires to Corsica as a half-pay captain of artillery. No Napoleonic Wars.

No Civil War?
A Parliament with no members elected from the Colonies took away the rights of the Southern upper class to own slaves. Happened in 1860…

When the Crown tries to enforce the Intolerable Act that prevented stout American yeoman farmers from their God given right to steal land from the Indians, well, we shall see about Manifest Destiny.

Americans stop showing up late for every war between Britain and Germany …

Also Don't know how the American Colonies would feel about providing cannon fodder for the Queen and King. Also Napoleon
won't just sit out History eating Grapes.

We'd be Canada?

Don't say that! I'm cold enough as it is!

The English language continues to decline into a corrupt patois as the weight of superfluous letter u's inserted at randoum drag the language into such gibberish that High Sumerian replaces it as the mother tongue.

This is an interesting question. WRT slavery, England abolished slavery in England proper in 1706. In 1838, it was abolished everywhere in the empire. So, if Slavery is suddenly abolished in the America's in 1838, is there another uprising? The North would likely welcome the change. But what of the South?

Hmmmm….single payer healthcare in the US?

Slavery and controlling expansion across the Appalachians would be key sources of friction between the colonies and the home government.

The Caribbean sugar islands and Spanish Luisiana would remain potential international flashpoints. Alaska was still up for grabs in the 1770s.

If Britain 'obtained' portions of the trans-Mississippi from Spain in the course of further international conflicts, given Spain's continuing decline (would France allow that?) would that ease pressure or create more problems. Would Britain be as interested as the new republic in the West, or would they see administering policing the frontier as not worth the cost.

In the end might a series of liberal goverments under Geoerge IV not be inclined to grant the colonies parliamentary representation and a degree of provincial autonomy?

Among other things, S M Stirling's "The Charge of Lee's Brigade" happens – link

The movement of Canada and Australia toward Dominion status give an idea of what might have happened in terms of national administration – indeed, America might have provided the blueprint for "Dominionisation". However, I think that there would have been other flash points that might have ignited another rebellion – slavery and religion being just two of them.

Of course there are multiple wars with the natives. In fact they might even be more brutal with a more determined military presence.

Are there? Let's not forget that one of the main causes of the real AWI was the British protection of Indian lands (at the expense of westward expansion by the Colonists) in 1764 and 1774, through the Proclamation Line and Quebec Acts.

As regards American participation in WW1 and WW2, let's not forget that isolationism and the strength of German-American politics retarded US entry into both conflicts. Neither of these would necessarily have been in place in a "British" America.

Here's my scenario.

Britain becomes even more dominant as an industrial power, but falls short from being the powerhouse the USA would have been as a separate nation. To counter this, France starts to increase ties with Russia that clings to Alaska and is trying to move into the North West (Yukon, Columbia, Washington and Oregon) to grab as much terrain before the British expansion reaches the coast.

France remains a kingdom, she has come out slightly worse out of the SYW than historical France. She clings onto Louisiana, but Quebec and much of the Missouri river area and now in British hands, holding an area roughly covering the Dakota's, Montana and pushing westwards, using the weakness of Spain to head off the Russians.

Spain is the sick man of Europe, weak, bankrupt, the colonial empire is slowly being carved up by the other powers.

Without Napoleonic wars, the European powers are free to invest in colonial adventures, as a result France and Britain move onto Africa much earlier.

Meanwhile Simon Bolivar remains an obscure footnote in history and the European powers dismantle the Spanish Empire in North and South America, but the experience is something like the Mexican adventure spread over a whole continent and the colonial powers soon abandon the areas of lesser interest while keeping key areas. The end result is a major gain for Britain in Canada and the North West, driving a wedge to the West Coast in the 1820's. They also gain footholds in Uruguay and Argentina, while France holds Northern Mexico and Texas all the way to Southern California.

Germany kickstarts its industrial revolution, and becomes the political battleground between the kingdom of France and the British Empire. France, Russia and Austria favour Bavaria as the the dominant power, while Britain puts its weight behind Prussia that will hopefully provide a much-needed ally in Europe other than Italy and Spain.

Around 1835 the Slavery Act is voted, which will allow the continuation of slavery in cotton-rich areas, but no further importation of slaves is allowed and all slaves born after 1840 will automatically become free citizens. Slavery remains legal in France until the latter part of the 19th century and controls much of the African slave trade. As a result several uprisings occur in the South with the French supplying weapons over the border and encouraging the Southern states to secede.

War breaks out over Germany with a failed bid by France to instate the Bavarian king as Emperor of Germany, The Anglo-Prussians are able to hold off a three-pronged attack by the French/Bavarians, Russians and Austrians. At the end of the war the British throw their full weight behind Prussia's bid for control of Germany and knock out France and Austria in quick succession. Highlanders and Bengal lancers march down the Champs Elysées and the Mona Lisa becomes a popular exhibit at the National Gallery.

In North America, the Southern States secede. French troops move to support this rebellion and the Russians send an army down the Missouri and Mississippi, but are stopped by the 24th Regiment of Foot near Williston. Both armies made extensive use of native troops, but the British Native cavalry was isolated from the infantry when they attacked a Russian supply train and driven off. The 24th Foot held their position for three days despite a violent artillery bombardment and five desperate charges by Russian infantry and cossacks. General Gough's relief column arrived in time to drive off the Russians who fell back to Bol'shiye Vodopady as winter sets in. With the news that France and Austria are out of the war and with Ottoman troops on the move in the Black Sea region, Russia sues for peace. Giving up what we would know as Washington and Oregon. Once the situation is settled in mainland Europe, the Royal Navy sets up an iron blockade of Louisiana. British troops take New Orleans and two days later Saint François in California falls. As a result the French lose control of the Mississippi and North California, leaving New Bordeaux (Kansas City) dangerously exposed. The secession ends roughly one year later with the taking of Atlanta. Due to the large proportion of Irish in these states there is a revolt in Ireland at the same time which is brutally repressed.

Britain is now the uncontested superpower by the last quarter of the 19th century. It has unified Germany as its watchdog in Europe and is looking forward to pushing out France and Russia from North America.

France is a humiliated nation, near bankruptcy, Louis XVII proved to be a skilled leader who did much to address the political and economic ineptitude of his father and grandfather, Louis XVIII was too ambitious and ended up with a much stronger Britain and Germany as main enemies. A failed coup d'etat rattles France. General Boulanger is drawn and quartered for treason while Colonel Dreyfus, the officer who stopped the uprising by refusing to give up the arsenal is made commander of the Order of Saint Louis, but is murdered a few years later by right wing radicals. King Louis XX is murdered in 1899 when his carriage is dynamited near the Place Hugues Capet, destroying the famous statue of Louis XIV. King Charles XI is young, modern and dynamic king and has begun a campaign of reform and national reconciliation and has been building up France's military with the latest technology.

Russia does only marginally better. It still retains a large chunk of North America but its ambitions in the Baltics and the Black sea are being held in check by Britain and the Ottoman Empire, who retains a strong grasp on the Balkans. Thanks to the strong financial support of the new European banking system and the Alaska gold rush and oil it rapidly becoming a modern state, unable to marry into the British Royal family, the Romanovs have married into the Bourbon and Orleans family avoiding Haemophilia. But inequality remains a huge problem in Russia and reforms are slow and ineffective, undermining Russia from the inside.

Austria and Russia are now unlikely allies, supported by France. Trapped between Britain's allies Italy, Germany and the Ottomans, they are being squeezed and I wouldn't be surprised if something in the Balkans sparks off another war sooner or later.

McDonald's fish and chips. And warm Budweiser.

I reckon a lot of the major wars we know and love from the naps onwards would have vanished, and with them quite a lot of technological advances. Without ww1 the motor car just remains a rich kids toy. So 2017 tech level would still revolve around steam locomotives and coal power. Ok it wouldn't be "1904" forever but the pace of chane would be a lot slower….

WOW! Phew!

When does the AWI fail? The agitation for change in the Constitutional relationship between the North American colonies and the British government was popular even among those who ultimately sided with the British. An early easy British victory probably does not give the colonies any leverage for immediate constitutional change, although there might be policy changes. A longer struggle makes it more likely the British government is going to have to make some kind of constitutional accommodation that gives the colonials more secure home rule. Ultimately this could have lead to an earlier creation of the British Commonwealth.

I don't see a British North America expanding like the U.S. did. The British empire would not have needed to admit the waves of immigrants to North America that the U.S. and Canada did, so immigration policies would probably have been more restricted. Territorial acquisitions by Britain in North America would be dictated by British interests rather than North American. Maybe New Orleans is seized in some counterfactual European conflict and added to West Florida, but I don't see the British having the need to acquire most of Louisiana, California or the American southwest.

Slavery. Who knows. In Britain the declining importance of sugar production made abolition easier. In North America cotton made slavery more profitable, helping to preserve the institution. Also the wave of abolition during and right after the AWI laid the groundwork for the future general abolition movement. If slavery continues to exist in New England and New York, and if the constitutional changes give those colonies the power to protect the institution, then what Parliament does to slavery in the West Indies isn't as important. The continued existence of slavery in North America might even give slavery's supporters in Parliament a stronger hand, delaying abolition in the islands.

The success or failure of the American revolt probably has little influence on the behavior or perception of George III's offspring, so changes in British government would likely occur. Without a successful republic in North America as a model, there probably would not have been a republican movement. Ireland is also going to be a problem. With more of North America open to Britain the development of British Australia is probably slowed significantly.

Suppression of the revolt in America saves France from participation in a war that bankrupted their monarchy. France still has financial and other issues to work out though. Maybe the crisis comes when France is involved in the next inevitable European crisis. Maybe Louis XVI's government can make gradual changes which avoid the issue. Either way though you don't have the American philosophical example influencing events in France, so a model other than the Republic is more likely. In the West Indies the lack of a French Revolution and delays in British emmancipation likely means a delay by the French in abolishing slavery. The social consequences of Haiti's war for independence don't happen, so Hatai's development is more similar to the development elsewhere in the area.

No French Revolution means no Napoleon which means less disruption in central Europe and Italy during 1789-1815. Prussia does not make its gains in northern Germany which means it isn't in the same position to dominate Germany in the 19th century. The Austrian empire probably would be stronger. Also the Spanish monarchy would likely be stronger, making a collapse of the Spanish empire in the Americas in the 1820s unlikely.

In addition to being in WWI and II from the start, America would find itself in the 2nd Boer War. We would be a dominion like Canada. National health care and common sense gun laws. No electoral college. How many and what provinces? American rules football?

Americans can be pretty stubborn about cherished principles, such as avoiding taxes or the inalienable right to make snarky comments. I do not think that the nascent republic would give up on resistance after just one failure, unless there would have been a major readjustment of attitude on the part of King and Parliament. Otherwise, I think trying to hold such a fractious and numerous bunch down by force across an ocean would ultimately prove just too expensive and troublesome to sustain against repeated uprisings. Thinking of the mutual atrocities that actually did occur during the Southern phase of the American Revolutionary War, I believe that American resistance, if defeated in conventional war, might well have degenerated into a particularly savage form of guerilla campaign against Crown forces.

"…Russia that clings to Alaska and is trying to move into the North West (Yukon, Columbia, Washington and Oregon) to grab as much terrain before the British expansion reaches the coast."

Starbucks, Nike, Boeing and Microsoft under the Czar? The horror!

So, pretty much everyone agrees: the failure of the AWI would be a complete disaster for wargaming. No Napoleonic Wars means no Prussian staff developing Kriegspiel, thus our hobby is stillborn. I move we discontinue this discussion immediately.

- Ix

"History" is pretty much set in its ways. Everything people are speculating about not happening, would have happened, but with different uniforms.
Napoleonic gaming would still happen, but probably named after someone else.
I am confident that the French would have been behind it all, resulting in spectacularly ostentatious uniforms, rather than stodgy Prussian styles.

Don't count on America showing up on time for the World Wars the British blundered into.
We would have still been British because we lost a war, not out of any loyalty to the Crown. Remember how the Irish declared war on Germany in 1939? Oh wait…

Southern Ireland had been a free nation since the 20s, why would it declare war on Germany? I don't get your point.

What makes everyone so sure that Britain would have abolished slavery even if it retained the slave-holding North American colonies? Consider all the money at stake, and planter's agents and colonial representatives adding their weight to the resistance from the sugar islands.

For that matter, would there have been dominion status for Canada and Australia without the example--and threat--of an independent United States?

Changing the outcome of a major war like that creates a sequence of unpredictable results. Don't just pick the ones you find comforting.

Oh. And read For Want of a Nail. Two centuries of the history of North America following Burgoyne's triumph at Saratoga.

What-if? scenarios are fun to discuss, thanks for starting this thread!

No War of 1812 and of course there is never a Louis and Clark expedition as Napoleon would never sell the land to his enemy.

Maybe not Lewis and Clark leading the expedition, but there was plenty of exploration going on thanks to the fur trade. The rivalry between the Hudson's Bay Company and the North West Company would have continued, and without the invisible barrier of the 49th parallel, the exploration would have gone into areas explored by Lewis and Clark in our history.

Does Manifest Destiny still take place? Post Waterloo Britain would find itself suddenly able to just take the area of the Louisiana Purchase.

As mentioned above, British fur traders were busy enough in the area north of Louisiana. There was likely to be expansion west from the 13 colonies as well as from Canada into nominally French territories – it was disputes over this sort of expansion that led to the FIW, so no reason to believe that French authority in the Louisiana Territory would be unchallenged in British North America.

Alaska is still purchased from Russia because with Canada and now the lower part of the North American continent under its domain it would be wrong to not have a complete set.

Russian America was tenuous during the entirety of its history. Russia would likely never sell to Britain any of its territories but it would be difficult for Russia to hold on to Alaska unless Russia had a much stronger presence in the Pacific than she had in our history. But thinking outside the box a bit, maybe the Russians could make a deal with Japan or Spain or some other power in order to prevent Britain from getting Alaska…

And interesting ideas from all the other contributors to this thread. Would Westminster devolve power to American colonial legislatures? Would America become a Dominion or equivalent? Goes however you want it!

Don't count on America showing up on time for the World Wars the British blundered into.
We would have still been British because we lost a war, not out of any loyalty to the Crown. Remember how the Irish declared war on Germany in 1939? Oh wait…

Point here is that you would still have been British, so no choice for you in the matter, as there was none for Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, Ireland or other parts of the Empire in 1914. Of course, by 1939 it was a different story for the Dominions, thanks to the 1934 Statute of Westminster, so you'd need to establish how things evolved in a world with no USA!

No choice for us? Really?
Maybe that would have been the spark for the Third (Fourth?) American War of Independence.

When the British Empire went to war, it didn't consult its colonies (although it did on occasion ask for troops). And if the demand for troops triggered a rebellion that would end up creating an interesting scenario: loyalists offended that their neighbours were unwilling to support the Crown versus the rebels seeking independence, accusations that the rebels were secret sympathisers of the Kaiser (or the Tsar or the Sultan or the Roi or whomever the enemy happened to be). So the Third/Fourth/Nth AWI could be bankrolled by one or more of the Crown's enemies (again).

America would never have become part of the United Kingdom. That term refers specifically to the Island of Great Britain, Ireland and smaller islands that are under the direct rule of the Monarch.

I suspect that even if the Revolution failed the UK Parliament would realize the difficulties of maintaining direct rule so a system that was in Ireland until 1800 would have been a good option

Ireland had its own Parliament from 1297 to 1800 composed of an elected House of Commons and an appointed House of Lords. The main purpose of parliament was to approve taxes that were then levied by and for the Lordship of Ireland.The Lordship was appointed by the Crown… think Viceroy. Until 1800 the Irish Parliament was not under the authority of the British Parliament but in effect was separate and apart. In 1800 Ireland voted to unite with Great Britain and send members to the Westminster Parliament this creating the current United Kingdom

This pre 1800 system would have gone a great way in ending the "No Taxation without Representation" case. There would have been the problem of getting the British Parliament to give up the access to American taxes

The American Parliament, like the Irish,would have had no say in relationships with other countries or declaring war The Army could have been organized as a separate establishment as then existed in Ireland but I don't see the Royal Navy being split.

Since America ( including Canada and the West Indies) was so large ,a number of Parliaments could have been established based on individual concerns so separate Northern and Southern regions could be established like the various "Presidencies " of India.

Growing differences and distances would result in inevitable distancing and a move to greater local control and independence in the Americas These internal differences such as slavery could still result in an American Civil War.

What makes everyone so sure that Britain would have abolished slavery even if it retained the slave-holding North American colonies? Consider all the money at stake, and planter's agents and colonial representatives adding their weight to the resistance from the sugar islands.

Because they abolished slavery empire wide in 1838. There was much money to be made then too. It did not matter to them. They felt slavery had to go. They did the right thing. Likely, it would not have changed in our alternate reality.

It's maybe worth pointing out that Lousiana had ceased to be French before the AWI, having become 'Luisiana'in 1763, in a deal with Spain to stop the trans-Mississippi being on the negotiating table at the Treaty of Paris. It only became French 'Louisiana' again briefly in 1803 in another sleight of hand to allow Napoleon to flog the territory off to the US.

Basically, the Spanish flag came down. The French flag went up. And came down again to be replaced by the US flag. Badaboom.

In Imperial terms the French were effectively out of the picture on the mainland from 1763.

Imagine how the Southern colonies would have responded when the British outlawed slavery.

The American civil war might have been North+UK versus the South+France or whoever wanted to pitch in at the time.

I think Weasel is correct.

Rather than have the failure of the AWI severely restrict gaming possibilities, I think the opposite is true!
Vive la Revolution!
Or whatever.

One would think that War would have been eliminated. Doesn't anybody here read history?

Ok. Perry makes British figures for the American Civil War.
Can I use Franco Prussian War figures for 1862? Let's ignore for the moment what went into making the Frenchies have that uniform in the first place……

Although I've never fully understood why, Britain absolutely did not want the American colonies to expand to the west. So what is now the United States likely ends up being three or even four different countries, with the original colonies being the only English-speaking one.

Because of the (failed) revolution, the original colonies are not combined into a single Dominion until the late 19th century. In terms of global Politick they are an unimportant side show. Because of its fragmentation, North America never comes even close to challenging Europe on the world stage, and to this day Europe is the center of world power. WW1 ends with a marginal German victory (the American colonies are an unimportant source of either manpower or manufacturing) and a negotiated peace, and although large militaries remain in place, WW1 turns out to be the last major European war. The European monarchies morph over time into situations in which most real power is held by some form of elected assembly, but the only truly violent revolution is in Russia – the last hold-out in our New World just as it was in The World We Know. Japan becomes the dominant Pacific power. India eventually gains independence, but both India and China are 3rd-world backwaters with agriculture-based economies.

Canada is eventually given back to France. One of the most overlooked outcomes of the revolution is the large number of loyalists who ended up re-settling in Canada; without the revolution, that doesn't happen and Canada remains essentially French.

Who knows about the slavery question? The British government PAID COMPENSATION for the freed slaves. That was a strain just for the Caribbean slaves; I don't think it would have been possible to include the American slaves. However, it was established in British law that the government could not seize private property without due compensation. (Side note: paying compensation was never on the table here in the States; I've often wondered if it would have had any effect on the discussions). However, any attempts at secession are dealt with harshly and quickly by Britain.

Let's ignore for the moment what went into making the Frenchies have that uniform in the first place……

That's enigmatic….

The major Gold Fields were in Alabama and Georgia until the California gold rush. This would have resulted in a war with Spain or Mexico or even Russia. The same with Texas oil in the late 1800s. The Latin Revolution was seeded during the Napoleonic Wars. So the French Revolution would have had to happen to spark this revolution as well.

When does America become a Commonwealth? Or does it as the Commonwealth according to some historians was a result of the American Revolution.
Too many what if questions.

Russia and the American West coast is also a major consideration in What Ifs. The status of native American tribes is another. The Muscogee Free State in Alabama-Georgia-upper Florida was supported by the British to block Spain and the USA in the 1790s. Would other Confederations been encouraged to block Spain and Russia.

A second French and Indian War is possible if the French keep Louisiana.

The French as a sovereign state surrendered all rights on the continent with the transfer of Louisiana to Spain in 1763. Perhaps the Bourbons could have persuaded their Spanish cousins to trade it back later on. By that time the Canadians would probably have worked out they were better off under British rule.

42flanker, why would the fiercely Roman Catholic Canadiens think that being ruled by a Protestant British king is better than by a Catholic French one?

Because the British regime was more liberal than the Bourbon regime, which had controlled the lives of the French settlers in a semi-feudal style. Once it was made clear that the Canadiens would be able to worship as they had before, the potential for resistance to the new government diminished. The British were more interested in promoting efficient agriculture and the fur trade than repressing Catholicism.

And in Sir Guy Carleton, they had an Irishman who was well aware of the potential for damage in suppressing the religion of the majority.

Nor should one overlook the ability of the rabidly anti-Catholic Americans to shoot themselves in the foot – John Jay produced a pamphlet claiming that George III was about to arm all the Canadian Catholics, send them on a rampage through the 13 Colonies, then ship them all over to Great Britain and do the same thing there; all this whilst the Congressional "peace team" was touring Canada trying to persuade them that the British were the common enemy. Then there was General Wooster closing the Catholic churches on Xmas Eve……

That story, 'The Charge of Lee's Brigade', gave me chills. Top stuff from S.M. Stirling!

Yup…what?