View Full Version : American Revolution, any way to stop it?
Marshal Murat
09-11-2005, 17:05
Would there have been any way to stop the American Revolution before it started?
I was wondering what would have been necessary to do to stop the Revolution.
thrashaholic
09-11-2005, 17:31
With hindsight, if I were the prime-minister of Britain at the time, I'd have enacted a policy of assemblies (like Scotland's parliament or the Welsh assembly) with a certain degree of autonomy and policy making power, but ultimate sovereignty lying in London, throughout the Empire. This would've undone the primary argument of the American rebels.
Tax wasn't a problem in pre-rebellion America at all; Americans were some of the wealthiest and least-taxed people in the Empire (indeed before the "Boston tea party" tea tariffs were slashed, it was smugglers who stood to lose their business who destroyed the tea). IMO the rebellion was primarily an issue of representation, which my solution would solve.
The rebels were rich, so wanted power that matched that wealth.
Another question that could be raised from this though is that if America hadn't gained independence, would the European empires have lasted for longer? I ask because there'd be no precedent for the constiuent countries to try to leave, and because the USA was one of the main proponents of breaking up the empires so it could trade more freely with the world.
Azi Tohak
09-11-2005, 18:13
Yup yup, 'no taxation without representation'. Lots of jealousy from the 13 towards the Sugar Monopoly and their rotton boroughs. Of course... I am sure someone would have come up with some way to convince a large number of Colonists to break away... but no representation was the biggie.
I do love how big a deal the tea tax was. I think it amounted to what you could scrounge out of your couch over the course of a year. But hey... mobs don't have to smrt (lots of historical examples of that).
Yes, I do think, had the Americans not revolted the European empires would have lasted longer. No example to follow, especially not a successful example. However, I do not believe there was any way to keep those empires for a long period of time. As in, I do not believe there is anyway the 13 colonies (and whatever would have happened in the last 200 years) would still be part of the British Empire.
Azi
Gawain of Orkeny
09-11-2005, 18:41
Would there have been any way to stop the American Revolution before it started?
You mean the War of Independance dont you? ~D
Marshal Murat
09-11-2005, 18:47
Of course, War of Independence.
ShadesWolf
09-11-2005, 21:21
'no taxation without representation'
Totally agree, these people were British subjects. It was not a place we had conquered. But should have been classed as part of Britain as Scotland and Wales was.
Strike For The South
09-11-2005, 21:35
:charge: ~:cheers: :charge: America forever GOD SAVE THE REPUBLIC :charge: ~:cheers: :charge: no way you puny British couldve stopped us no taxation without reresentation charge charge I say ~D
You mean the War of Independance dont you? ~D
Depends on your location really... War of Independence means something entirely different to a Greek or Dutch for instance. Or any other of hundreds of people.
So American Revolution is a way better label.
Kaiser of Arabia
09-11-2005, 22:31
To be quite honest, if General Howe had not been so hesitent to attack the Americans after the Battle of Bunker Hill, he could have ended it right quick.
Well, realize, he was British. Brits don't like attacking, as history shows. Took an Irishman to beat napoleon, at least.
Duke Malcolm
09-11-2005, 23:07
He wasn't an Irishman. He was born of Britons, and brought up with the British.
He was born of Britons,
Sure wasn't - the only Britons left at that point were the Welsh.
Gawain of Orkeny
09-11-2005, 23:50
Well, realize, he was British. Brits don't like attacking, as history shows. Took an Irishman to beat napoleon, at least.
Werent the British the ones who usually attacked in this war. In the War of 1812 wasnt it also them who did most of the attacking? Did they become the most powerful nation in world by defending? Only we can claim that ~D
Yeah the Brits defended themselves to an Empire just like the Romans... Damn they must have been scared people.
It was always said that it was American opinion that conquering North America was 'manifest destiny'.
Marshal Murat
09-12-2005, 02:43
Well, there was Manifest Destiny before there was any known gold in California.
I've always seen that Manifest Destiny thing as BS. The truth is, people settled the west because they thought they'd have a better life out there. They went to california because of the gold. They went west for the furs. They went west for alot of reasons, but I don't think "Manifest Destiny" was one of them.
What about going north?
These seem like pretty good points, but the Manifest Destiny thing ties in pretty well with the American attitude that America was to be the new Eden.
In retrospect, it's easy to use the Manifest Destiny line, but the fact is that we expanded for the same reasons that every nation before us has sought to expand.
Oh, obviously. The Manifest Destiny line was just popular opinion, or at least, I understand it to have been. It's not like the popular opinion could influence political action, of course, which makes me think the whole idea was just propagated as much as possible in order to try to make the landgrab.
mercian billman
09-12-2005, 04:38
It was always said that it was American opinion that conquering North America was 'manifest destiny'.
The concept of manifest destiny did not come about until well after the American Revolution. That being said I do believe that Americans have always sought to expand and explore new frontiers. Even before the Revolution, colonists were expanding westward into the Ohio River Valley. Which the British were trying to prevent to ensure the loyalty of Native tribes in the area, which was another point of contention between the colonists and the crown.
Gawain of Orkeny
09-12-2005, 05:43
That being said I do believe that Americans have always sought to expand and explore new frontiers.
I thought that was Star Fleet and the mission of the Enterprise?
Aren't they basically the same thing?
Incongruous
09-12-2005, 09:56
Arthur Wellesley considerd himself English. "Just because Jesus was born in stable deosn't make him a horse"
Marshal Murat
09-12-2005, 11:10
Keep on Topic.
What about the Monroe Doctrine. Why would President Monroe even try to prevent European influences in the Americas when his nation was very weak (militarily at least)
lancelot
09-12-2005, 12:14
Ironically enough I was reading an essay on yesterday on this topic.
It argued that one factor that could have helped stop the revolution (read-vile rebellion!) was a former victory, ie-the aquisition of canada.
It postulated that if we had let the French keep canada, a potential enemy on the border (along with indians) would have been more in the forethought of american minds than moaning about paying their own share of their (rather meagre) defence costs.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-12-2005, 16:18
Yes, the American Revolution of 1775 could have been prevented.
Necessary components of such a program:
Representation in Parliament, both houses, in numbers parallel to those accorded to the "Irish." Any real measure of voting power, at least to the extent where America's voice would have been heard and their numbers would have become -- at least occasionally -- critical to a vote would have done much to include the "colonials" and defuse resentment.
Repeal the limitations on Westward expansion imposed by the Proclamation of 1763. Most of the "fractious" residents of the colonies were focused on expansion. To support and allow this migration/conquest would have involved the British in an ongoing low-intensity conflict on the frontier (colonial armed forces were insufficient during this era), but would have opened a "safety-valve" of sorts for the more hot-headed of the colonials.
A greater and more visible expenditure of tax funds on behalf of colonial development. While the British government may have spent more on its colonies than they collected there, much of that spending was "invisible." Monies spent for troops who are not on the frontier or for naval patrols or for the local bureacratic offices do not compare to road building and/or harbor improvements for visibility. This would have allowed (over time) for a gradual increase in taxation and helped to offset the much higher costs incurred with fielding and supplying a frontier army in America.
Seamus
Red Harvest
09-13-2005, 02:09
Well, realize, he was British. Brits don't like attacking, as history shows. Took an Irishman to beat napoleon, at least.
On the contrary, the British regulars were very disciplined in attacking. Howe realized he couldn't afford another "victory" like Bunker Hill. It was truly Pyrrhic. This made him unnecessarily cautious later.
Well, the American War could have been lost by the insurgents… For what I know, it was also a huge number of loyalists and without a good politic from Benjamin Franklin and the alliance with France (providing troops –8 800 of the 18 000 men of the troops in Yorktown were French- and more important, fleet), I doubt of the American (in modern meaning) victory. Now, an US defeat would have probably just postponed the Independence. But it is difficult to judge of the result of such problem: Texas/California/Mexico, Louisiana, Alaska etc…
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.