AH Gurps setting British North America

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by robkelk

Er... patriots, by definition, do not rebel.

Some of the "1837 rebellions" were fomented by US interests (private, not government), so it's likely that any North American rebellions in this timeline would have been smaller and less-organized, and thus easier to control.

Patriots to an independent North American state would rebel, just because they aren't patriotic towards a distant British Imperial monarch doesn't mean they aren't patriotic to their own country.

Patriots to any given cause, by definition, do rebel.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Patriots to an independent North American state would rebel, just because they aren't patriotic towards a distant British Imperial monarch doesn't mean they aren't patriotic to their own country.

Right, QFT.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Patriots to an independent North American state would rebel, just because they aren't patriotic towards a distant British Imperial monarch doesn't mean they aren't patriotic to their own country.

Patriots to any given cause, by definition, do rebel.

They weren't actually rebelling against the British monarch (who by that time was no longer administering colonies). They were rebelling against the local ruling families. Which helps explain why they failed. In the case of the United States, the local ruling families were leading the rebellion.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

They weren't actually rebelling against the British monarch (who by that time was no longer administering colonies). They were rebelling against the local ruling families. Which helps explain why they failed. In the case of the United States, the local ruling families were leading the rebellion.

Of course, after the first revolt was crushed in 1837, some of the patriotes crossed into the US, declared independence, and regrouped for another try.

I suspect that the government run schools in most of Canada do not put a positive spin these men or their cause. I wonder how the schools in Quebec teach this history?

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

OTOH, Canada remained loyal, so I don't think it is inconceivable that the American colonies might also stay loyal. Perhaps examining the differences between British treatment of the American colonies and Canada might suggest how that could come about?


Hans

I haven't read near enough Canadian history, the Canadians don't seem to see their history as exciting, go fig. Anyway, according to the British and American historians I've read, the UK radically changed its policies toward settler colonies after the American Revolution. So if 1777 sees the crushing of the American Revolution, then then Brits might not change their policies.

Remenber that Britain's rejection of slavery was tied up in its reactions to the American and French revolutions. Rejecting slavery was the way to maintain Britain's self image as the true "Land of the Free!" England contested the title with Scotland and Ireland for centuries, but America and France threatened Britain's self image so the Scots and English elites needed to fight back and reclaim their self-image. England seems to no longer see itself as the land of the free, nor seems to desire to see itself that way. Scotland still prizes the title, but few folks notice.

If the American Revolution was crushed in 1777, then slavery would probably not be outlawed. Once cotton became big Britain would support the southeastern cotton planters. The Southerners would become peers though buying seats in parliament and the Cotton Interest would be to the 19th century what the West Indian Interest was to the 18th. Lee of Virginia would probably be a well loved British general and when he hung John Brown, Clara Barton, Abrahan Lincoln, Harriet Tubman, Walt Whitman, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Fredrick Douglas, from the same tree, he'd have been the toast of London. It's new hero saint.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

Of course, after the first revolt was crushed in 1837, some of the patriotes crossed into the US, declared independence, and regrouped for another try.

I suspect that the government run schools in most of Canada do not put a positive spin these men or their cause.

Having attended both, neither do the private schools. I don't think you'll find many American schools extolling Benedict Arnold's virtues either.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Having attended both, neither do the private schools. I don't think you'll find many American schools extolling Benedict Arnold's virtues either.

No comparison, though. Arnold was a traitor, for all his skill as a general and his physical courage.

The Patriotes were men of principle, men who loved their native country and were fighting for her against terrible odds.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

No comparison, though. Arnold was a traitor, for all his skill as a general and his physical courage.

The Patriotes were men of principle, men who loved their native country and were fighting for her against terrible odds.

And also traitors. If every rebel is a patriot, then by the same token every rebel is a traitor. Which is more important depends on which side holds your loyalty.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Remenber that Britain's rejection of slavery was tied up in its reactions to the American and French revolutions. Rejecting slavery was the way to maintain Britain's self image as the true "Land of the Free!" England contested the title with Scotland and Ireland for centuries, but America and France threatened Britain's self image so the Scots and English elites needed to fight back and reclaim their self-image. England seems to no longer see itself as the land of the free, nor seems to desire to see itself that way. Scotland still prizes the title, but few folks notice.

If the American Revolution was crushed in 1777, then slavery would probably not be outlawed. Once cotton became big Britain would support the southeastern cotton planters. The Southerners would become peers though buying seats in parliament and the Cotton Interest would be to the 19th century what the West Indian Interest was to the 18th. Lee of Virginia would probably be a well loved British general and when he hung John Brown, Clara Barton, Abrahan Lincoln, Harriet Tubman, Walt Whitman, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Fredrick Douglas, from the same tree, he'd have been the toast of London. It's new hero saint.

I disagree.

The colonies were too far away for representation in Parliament to make sense. This was part of the problem during the Imperial Crisis and Revolutionary eras.


I don't think you've got the British abolition of slavery quite right. There were a number of factors, religious, economic, and political at work in the official end of slavery in the Empire.

Robert E. Lee of Virginia would have seen his father hanged, so I rather doubt he'd be a big fan of the Brits, Astromancer. Most of the gentry of Virginia had sided with the Patriots in 1776, and Virginia was the very first colony to declare independence. Lighthorse Harry Lee would have faced the same fate at the hands of the victorious British as Jefferson, Washington, etc.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

And also traitors. If every rebel is a patriot, then by the same token every rebel is a traitor. Which is more important depends on which side holds your loyalty.

Arnold was a traitor either way, though. He switched sides.