Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Once the revolution was underway and blood was being spilled, what was the very first instinct among American regarding how to conduct and win the war? It was to invade and sieze Canada, a huge landgrab. They had a thousand miles of coast to defend against the greatest maritime power the world had ever known, who also had the planet's most disciplined army. With no navy and almost nothing in the way of coastal fortifications, the Americans were going to be very hard pressed to defend the land they did occupy, yet still their first act was to try and increase their property holdings.
Do you not find that revealing regarding American mentalities toward property expansion?
Not really. The US Congress had petitioned and asked for French-Canadian support in their fight with the British. While the two attempts to seek the support never gained traction, there was a solid belief that if given the opportunity the French in Quebec would join the American cause.
With Gage penned in at Boston there was nowhere else for American forces to go and engage the British other then in Canada, with the added bonus of the possibility of adding the French in Quebec to the cause, which would have the added bonus of attracting interest from France itself. Canada was lightly defended at the time and the feeling was that the Americans could swoop in, secure Fort St. John, Montreal and Quebec and eliminate the British military presence in North America save for the forces in Boston and garrison in Newfoundland.
I don't see the expedition as a "land grab" I see it as a calculated move to engage the British and attempt to gain French-Canadian support. While the expedition ultimately did failed, it did spook the British enough that they dispatched a relief force under Burgoyne to reinforce Quebec, troops that were needed in the colonies especially as they arrived when the British position in Boston had just been lost. This move set the stage for what became one of the major successes for the US in the war, Saratoga.
As for the rest in terms of defending what the US already had, that was impossible and they knew it was impossible; just as it was impossible for the British to secure the entirety of the colonies. The war was about engaging or evading the British army and keeping the fight on American terms.
Probably no man's words galvanized the American colonist's opinion toward separation from Great Britain more than those in Thomas Paine's pamphlet, Common Sense. There is a quote attributed to both Paine's good friend Joel Barlow and John Adams: "Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain."
Although John Adams would later come to despise Paine, he said he doubted "whether any man in the world has had more influence on its inhabitants or affairs for the last thirty years than Tom Paine." Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson,"every post and every day rolls upon us independence like a torrent .... History is to ascribe the American Revolution to Thomas Paine."
A Paine biographer, Craig Nelson, goes as far as to say that "Common Sense would lead directly to the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation ...." Unfortunately, for Paine's memory as one of the nation's founders, his writings and outspoken criticisms of religion led to his disgrace and obscurity.
Goat:
We are drifting a bit off course from the central premise being discussed....what could have prevented the revolution.
How do you evaluate my thesis regarding the desire for westward expansion as it relates to that question? Among the ideas which had been offered in this thread....granting the Americans a few token seats in Parliament, bribing American leaders with titles or officer commissions, or facilitating the expansion of the colonies into the Ohio Valley and Great lakes region, do you really think the first two would have had the impact which the third would have had?
If the Brits were in lockstep with the American pioneers, providing some orderly means for land claims, providing garrisons and forts for protection against the natives, using influence back home to keep the French and Spanish minding their own business..in short, doing everything possible to sustain and extend the dynamic which had made America so desirable a place to live....do you think that the Americans would have revolted against that situation? One where what they wanted the most was being made possible by the mother country?
Would you bet on that, or would you rely on Samuel Adams selling out his radical notions because Britain named him a peer, and George Washington fighting for the English because he placed more value on being a Colonel in the Coldstream Guards than on being the commander in chief of the Continental forces?
As for Britain giving in to colonial demands as has been suggested, that is a non starter because in fact Britain did give in to colonial demands for years. All of the attempts at new taxes on the colonies failed and were withdrawn, it wasn't until after the Boston Tea Party that Britain finally got tough and took the decision that crown authority had to be asserted if for no other reason than validating crown authority.
Finally, would token representation in Parliament, which would have amounted to a handful of Americans being ignored and outvoted, would that have solved all the problems and extinguished the hotheads?
My thesis is not that the denied desire for westward expansion was the only reason that there was a revolt, rather, it is that British cooperation in facilitating such expansion would have been such a desirable good that it would have secured loyalties for at least the next generation or two. No other action that the Brits might have taken would have been as effective.
Goat:
We are drifting a bit off course from the central premise being discussed....what could have prevented the revolution.
Well, right off the bat, I think we both agree that "prevent" means temporary as the revolution sort of seemed destined to happen and if not in blood and musket balls, certainly slower and legislatively, but it would have happened nonetheless.
Quote:
How do you evaluate my thesis regarding the desire for westward expansion as it relates to that question? Among the ideas which had been offered in this thread....granting the Americans a few token seats in Parliament, bribing American leaders with titles or officer commissions, or facilitating the expansion of the colonies into the Ohio Valley and Great lakes region, do you really think the first two would have had the impact which the third would have had?
I think that land pressures were not as great as you are making them out to be. The "Appalachian Line" issue, was certainly one of the many issues that highlighted the growing rift, but I don't think it was the supreme issue. In relevance to the other two I think the creation of an American arisotcracy with a voice in the House of Lords and direct representation in the House of Commons from the colonies could have had a far greater impact on delaying or "preventing" a war then throwing open the gates for uncontrolled land speculation and settlement in the west.
Quote:
If the Brits were in lockstep with the American pioneers, providing some orderly means for land claims, providing garrisons and forts for protection against the natives, using influence back home to keep the French and Spanish minding their own business..in short, doing everything possible to sustain and extend the dynamic which had made America so desirable a place to live....do you think that the Americans would have revolted against that situation? One where what they wanted the most was being made possible by the mother country?
Except the British did just this. In 1768 and 1770 they completed treaties that opened up the entire area that is now West Virginia and Kentucky to settlement. The intent of the line was not to permanently restrain, but to allow for a planned and controlled expansion so as not to cause conflict. On top of that following the 7 Year's War the British posted 10,000 regulars in North America tasked with defending the colonies and in particular maintaining order on the frontier. There were garissoned forts in these areas watching over settlers and protecting trade. It was the cost of maintaining these troops and the Crown's colonial adminsitration that ultimately led to the passing of the various taxes to try and pay for it all.
Quote:
Would you bet on that, or would you rely on Samuel Adams selling out his radical notions because Britain named him a peer, and George Washington fighting for the English because he placed more value on being a Colonel in the Coldstream Guards than on being the commander in chief of the Continental forces?
Sam Adams could have cared less about money or position, however, the people who financed him and allowed him to do the things he did certainly cared. The Whigs in Boston were dominated by smugglers and merchants. Fix the issues related to trade and give the colonials a voice in Parliament and Adams' support goes away as well as the rhetoric over representation.
Washington, honestly, he would have sold out. He only became involved in the lead up to the revolution over concern about the Townshend Acts and the impact this had on his businesses. Washington always considered himself personally "above" regular people and made it his purpose to only associate with those of "rank". He even cautioned his fellows in regards to people of lower station, "treat them civilly but keep them at a proper distance, for they will grow upon familiarity, in proportion as you sink in authority." Washington became convinced that his contemporaries were never going to be equal to the landed aristocracy of Britain. He cast his lot with the revolution and did his best to ensure its success. He didn't want to be a king, he didn't believe in that, but don't think for a moment that when he read the words "all men were created equal" that he really thought it applied to "all men". To him it applied to "all men of sufficient rank, priviledge and wealth". Making him Lord Washington of the Virginias and an honorary Colonel in the Grenadiers would have satiated his need. Give a few other key planters, merchants and landowners the same treatment and you take away the funding for the revolution.
Quote:
As for Britain giving in to colonial demands as has been suggested, that is a non starter because in fact Britain did give in to colonial demands for years. All of the attempts at new taxes on the colonies failed and were withdrawn, it wasn't until after the Boston Tea Party that Britain finally got tough and took the decision that crown authority had to be asserted if for no other reason than validating crown authority.
They certainly gave in, but also generally kept one odd provision as the assertion of their authority. For example when the Townshend Taxes were repealed, the one on tea was kept as a reminder of Parliaments power. The same was done when various Acts were repealed and it had been the case since at least the late 1760's.
Quote:
Finally, would token representation in Parliament, which would have amounted to a handful of Americans being ignored and outvoted, would that have solved all the problems and extinguished the hotheads?
No, it wouldn't have exinguished them, but it would have greatly hurt their argument and ability to engage in propaganda. Our new American nobility means these men are no longer being funded. Giving representation in Parliament means that the most resonating line of reasoning is taken away. You Americans are equal, you have representation. It also isn't so clear that an American block would have been routinely outvoted and ignored. There was a strong minority in Parliament that was very pro-colony and saw them as equals. Combined with an American delegation, they could have perhaps actually influenced events for the positive.
Quote:
My thesis is not that the denied desire for westward expansion was the only reason that there was a revolt, rather, it is that British cooperation in facilitating such expansion would have been such a desirable good that it would have secured loyalties for at least the next generation or two. No other action that the Brits might have taken would have been as effective.
My only counter is that they did do just that when they opened up Kentucky and West Virginia. GW himself recieved a large tract of land in West Virginia for his service during the 7 Year's War, land he planned to lease to settlers as was common practice in the colonies and the source of most "landowners". Ultimately land was not nearly as scarce as what you were making it out to be. What was the issue in the west is the symbolism of the Crown's control and it was just one of many symbols of that and not one that nearly impacted as many people as the various other causes.
I think you need to decide which course you would prefer for the novel, avoidance or failure. I think the ramifications of either would have been quite different and would seem to be important to the basis of your novel otherwise you wouldn't be pondering this.
Definitely on my list. I'm still in the planning stages there. And it won't be until after my other novel is done anyways. But no harm in getting the research out of the way.
I'm writing a novel that relies on the fact that the American Revolution never happened, or worst case totally failed.
If I were writing this for a British audience I would rely more upon Lord North's manipulating the egos of American colonialist, with lots of back door deal making and good old British late story reveals of betrayal of one group of colonist "the Thomas Paynes and New England radicals" by the landed gentry.
If you go the Micheneresque route... you'd end up with the story of Canada, so unless you can come up with a long family history and a really good love story, good luck making the best sellers list (of course you could just be one hell of a good writer who hardly needs my advice).
Ah, I found it, If you can pick up a copy of Angle in the Whirlwind, it offers great insight in the slow movement of the principles shift from loyalist to revolutionaries.
Definitely on my list. I'm still in the planning stages there. And it won't be until after my other novel is done anyways. But no harm in getting the research out of the way.
There was an alt history published in I think the late 70's where the flegling revolutionary government was militarily defeated. It hinged on losing one battle which had been barely won and the dominoes that fell. The leadership was captured and tried and publicly exectued. The layer that supported them was arrested and shipped away. The rest were left under an newly organized self government with strong ties to Britan.
But in the end, they were still broken off. People still migrated west, ignoring whatever laws which were put into place. The existing government came to support them and the US and Canada, with slightly different borders, was granted the same deal Canada and Australia got. The US had strong ties with Australia since those who were suspect had continued to be sent across the sea as convicts so there were many family ties.
I wish I could remember the name because I'd like to read it. It was when I was really sick and stuck at home and I remember saving the book section of the paper with the review.
Sometimes things can hinge of just one thing which set in motion so much else. I got to see Harry Turtledove at LASFS (Los Angeles Science Fantacy Society, oldest science fiction club in the world which truned fifty in the 80's) when he was a member/guest. The thing that is so convincing about his alt tales is he keeps the known and unlikely to change so close and does so by research. He'd sent one chapter of Guns of the South into the publisher, and there was a post office scene where it was open. But as it was tracked on a calander so he knew exactly what day it was, he discovered it was Jefferson Davis's birthday, and it would have been closed. He had it returned and edited it so it would be right. Perhaps one in a couple hundred readers if they were looking might have noticed, but it was worth it to him to keep the alt world correct where it had to be.
When you write it I'd love to read yours.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
