What If America Had Lost the Revolution?

[Mindful]

Though fictional, "The Patriot" has a strong element of truth, in that it gives a sense of just how much courage it took for the colonists to rebel against the awesome might of the British Empire — and how lucky they were to eke out a victory. As the historian David McCullough noted in his book "1776," the Americans suffered terrible losses — about 25,000 casualties, or roughly 1 percent of the colonial population. That would be the equivalent of a modern war claiming more than 3 million U.S. lives. "To those who had been with Washington and who knew what a close call it was at the beginning ... the outcome seemed little short of a miracle," McCullough wrote.

What If America Had Lost the Revolution?

If the colonists hadn't eked out a victory against the mighty British Empire, what would have been their fate? Would leaders like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have been executed?

science.howstuffworks.com

 

[Mindful]

^ Had the British been victorious, it seems likely that King George III would have come through on the promise he made in 1775 to "bring to condign punishment the authors, perpetrators and abetters of such traitorous designs" [source: Britannia.com]. The British had executed the leaders of a failed Scottish rebellion in 1747, and it seems likely that they would have marched George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other American revolutionaries to the gallows as well [source: Chadwick].

One of the reasons for the rebellion was the colonists' fear that the British government would increase their taxes. (That was ironic because after adopting the U.S. Constitution, the Americans went on to tax themselves at much higher rates than the 1 percent or so of colonial economic output that the British took by imposing the Navigation Acts [source: Baack].) But had the revolution failed, the British might have punished the rebels by making them pay additional reparations for the cost of suppressing the revolt — a total of about 80 million pounds sterling (the equivalent of roughly a few billion dollars in today's U.S. dollars) [source: Tombs, Officer]. So, postwar colonial America might have been a pretty hungry, impoverished place, with food crops being sold off or shipped to England. The result might have been widespread famine, akin to what occurred in Ireland in the 1840s.

 

[Yarddog]

^ Had the British been victorious, it seems likely that King George III would have come through on the promise he made in 1775 to "bring to condign punishment the authors, perpetrators and abetters of such traitorous designs" [source: Britannia.com]. The British had executed the leaders of a failed Scottish rebellion in 1747, and it seems likely that they would have marched George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other American revolutionaries to the gallows as well [source: Chadwick].

One of the reasons for the rebellion was the colonists' fear that the British government would increase their taxes. (That was ironic because after adopting the U.S. Constitution, the Americans went on to tax themselves at much higher rates than the 1 percent or so of colonial economic output that the British took by imposing the Navigation Acts [source: Baack].) But had the revolution failed, the British might have punished the rebels by making them pay additional reparations for the cost of suppressing the revolt — a total of about 80 million pounds sterling (the equivalent of roughly a few billion dollars in today's U.S. dollars) [source: Tombs, Officer]. So, postwar colonial America might have been a pretty hungry, impoverished place, with food crops being sold off or shipped to England. The result might have been widespread famine, akin to what occurred in Ireland in the 1840s.

Would have delayed westward expansion greatly as well. Other parts of the U.S. would probably now be French, Spanish and Russian

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Though fictional, "The Patriot" has a strong element of truth, in that it gives a sense of just how much courage it took for the colonists to rebel against the awesome might of the British Empire — and how lucky they were to eke out a victory. As the historian David McCullough noted in his book "1776," the Americans suffered terrible losses — about 25,000 casualties, or roughly 1 percent of the colonial population. That would be the equivalent of a modern war claiming more than 3 million U.S. lives. "To those who had been with Washington and who knew what a close call it was at the beginning ... the outcome seemed little short of a miracle," McCullough wrote.

What If America Had Lost the Revolution?

If the colonists hadn't eked out a victory against the mighty British Empire, what would have been their fate? Would leaders like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have been executed?

science.howstuffworks.com

What If America Had Lost the Revolution?​

we lost the one in the 1960's

 

[Mindful]

Would have delayed westward expansion greatly as well. Other parts of the U.S. would probably now be French, Spanish and Russian

Separate countries you mean? Like South America?

IMO, The Louisiana Purchase opened up expansion into the West.

 

[fncceo]

If American had lost The Revolutionary War, we would be Canadians today ... and we all know what kind of weather Canadians have...

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[Mindful]

This atttracted my attention:

*One of the reasons for the rebellion was the colonists' fear that the British government would increase their taxes. (That was ironic because after adopting the U.S. Constitution, the Americans went on to tax themselves at much higher rates than the 1 percent or so of colonial economic output that the British took by imposing the Navigation Acts.

 

[Quasar44]

Though fictional, "The Patriot" has a strong element of truth, in that it gives a sense of just how much courage it took for the colonists to rebel against the awesome might of the British Empire — and how lucky they were to eke out a victory. As the historian David McCullough noted in his book "1776," the Americans suffered terrible losses — about 25,000 casualties, or roughly 1 percent of the colonial population. That would be the equivalent of a modern war claiming more than 3 million U.S. lives. "To those who had been with Washington and who knew what a close call it was at the beginning ... the outcome seemed little short of a miracle," McCullough wrote.

What If America Had Lost the Revolution?

If the colonists hadn't eked out a victory against the mighty British Empire, what would have been their fate? Would leaders like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have been executed?

science.howstuffworks.com

The British never had the forces to hold long term

 

[Mindful]

The British never had the forces to hold long term

Thank the French for that.

 

[Mushroom]

*One of the reasons for the rebellion was the colonists' fear that the British government would increase their taxes. (That was ironic because after adopting the U.S. Constitution, the Americans went on to tax themselves at much higher rates than the 1 percent or so of colonial economic output that the British took by imposing the Navigation Acts.

Actually, the issue was not taxes themselves, but that they were taxed without representation. Which was completely against the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, and the established "Rights of Englishmen".

It was not actually about taxes, but because the Colonists had no say in their own governing, all attempts to create or negotiate representation (at the Local or Empire level) were ignored or crushed, and they were being forced to pay with no say in how that money was spent.

However, if the Revolution was lost, more than likely within a century the Empire would have followed. One of the lessons the UK learned when the American Colonies left was that they could not treat their colonists in the same way in the future. In fact, another bone of contention was the Quebec Act of 1774, which gave parts of Canada increased autonomy. Including rights the rest of the colonies did not get. Expanded even more in the Constitution Act of 1791.

The UK did learn their lesson, and that was they had to treat their colonists as "Englishmen". And in all of the colonies that followed with a significant European (English) population, they did the same thing. But if they had won the Revolution, the UK would not have learned that lesson and the issues that caused 1776 would have been repeated in Canada, Australia, an all other places they had planted their flag. Like Spain, ultimately doomed to see their colonies one after the other revolt and leave.

Yes, they did tax themselves even higher after they became independent. But the difference was that they had a say in how their taxes were spent. They were not imposed from on-high, by a government an ocean away that did not have a single one of their representatives involved in the process.

 

[Mr Natural]

We’d be driving on the wrong side of the road and drinking warm beer.

 

[Ralph Norton]

We’d be driving on the wrong side of the road and drinking warm beer.

But our soccer teams would be a lot better.

 

[Mindful]

Actually, the issue was not taxes themselves, but that they were taxed without representation.

Many people living in Britain at the time were not represented either.

As l understood it, the main bone of contention, was the demand for the colonists to bear the costs of the French/Indian War. And to pay for their own protection provided by the British navy.

 

[Mindful]

We’d be driving on the wrong side of the road and drinking warm beer.

It’s you that drive on the wrong side of the road. Napoleon told you to.

 

[Mindful]

But our soccer teams would be a lot better.

You could be playing cricket, and drinking Pimms.

 

[miketx]

You could be playing cricket, and drinking Pimms.

I would still be wonderful!

 

[Mushroom]

The British never had the forces to hold long term

Actually, they did.

Right before and at the start of the Revolution, the percentage of Whigs (Patriots) was about 20%, and the Tories (Loyalists or Royalists) was around 15%. With the vast majority of the population split with leanings to one side or the other (or both).

But the problem was, the UK did not understand this, and with each new declaration (especially after the "Intolerable Acts" of 1774) they pushed more and more to the side of the Patriots. In fact, a lot of the members of the Second Continental Congress were Royalists. But the actions of the Crown by 1776 pushed even those most loyal to the government to revolt. If not for losing the popular support after the Intolerable Acts, there never would have been enough popular support for a revolt to require a military presence.

If they had simply been willing to give them even limited autonomy and a say in Parliament, then odds are the Revolution would never have happened. They actually had the popular sentiment on their side, until 1775. Once Patriot favor grew to 45%, war was inevitable unless the UK made drastic changes. And the problem was, they became even harsher and started doing almost brutal occupation of even Tory enclaves and drove most of them out.

One thing that must be remembered, after 1783 there were still over half a million Loyalists in the former Colonies. And wanting to keep as many as they could, the UK Government offered any Colonials that wanted to emigrate to other parts of the Empire generous land grants and offers of cash. But only about 80,000 took them up on that. 45,000 moving to Canada, around 5,000 to Florida, 12,000 moving to England, and the rest scattering to the rest of their colonies. Even most of the Loyalists left realized they were better off in the new US than under the fickle and mercurial British Empire.

 

[Mushroom]

If anybody wants an interesting book to read in an alternate history that is like this, I suggest "The Two Georges", by Harry Turtledove and Richard Dreyfuss.

In short, the Intolerable Acts and other "outrages" were averted, and the title comes from a famous (in that timeline) painting by Thomas Gainsborough of King George and George Washington meeting. That essentially gave the Colonists in the end most of what they wanted, with greater autonomy and limited self government.

 

[Mushroom]

Many people living in Britain at the time were not represented either.

Oh nonsense. What, you never heard of Parliament?

Are you even aware that the Constitution was in a great many ways directly patterned off of the English Government? With one part of the Legislature (Senate) having dominant say in major aspects of National and International dealings, and the other (House) largely having the "purse strings" of how the money was spent?

If you think that the people in England had no representation, then you do not know history. I suggest you start learning some, as the American Revolution was just over 100 years after that same Parliament overthrew their King.

And the "As l understood it, the main bone of contention, was the demand for the colonists to bear the costs of the French/Indian War. And to pay for their own protection provided by the British navy." is exactly the issue. As I said, they had no choice in how the money was collected or spent. They had even tried to offer establishing their own local legislature, which would raise any taxes requested. But that was refused, as the Crown refused to give them any autonomy.