American Revolution

[Johnny1A.2]

A time traveler trying to prevent the American secession might could try to stir up a common enemy that represented a threat to both London and the colonial governments. The only likely seeming candidates would be France, Spain, or some other European sea power, Denmark looks like a possibility. But he'd have to set it up so that both sides saw the enemy as a direct and fairly immediate threat, or you mostly likely end up with the hostile power 'wedging' the empire, driving American and Britain apart.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

A time traveler trying to prevent the American secession might could try to stir up a common enemy that represented a threat to both London and the colonial governments. The only likely seeming candidates would be France, Spain, or some other European sea power, Denmark looks like a possibility. But he'd have to set it up so that both sides saw the enemy as a direct and fairly immediate threat, or you mostly likely end up with the hostile power 'wedging' the empire, driving American and Britain apart.

Denmark was not particularly ambitious. Spain was a has-been. Really it would have to be France. The problem would be a decreased local foothold.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

To be fair, they had the French Revolution as an example of how noble ideals could lead to things going seriously sour. So it wasn't just reactionary stubbornness.

That is typical of politics. Things get an association unrelated to any rational assessment of their advisability. Perhaps there is something to be said for that; you can't know a political system by it's abstract description.

In any case, France had just been their enemy. As usual. So being reluctant to use French language habits, even when they meant something that English thought they had gotten right is understandable.

[ericthered]

If I was a time-traveler trying to mess up the american revolution, I'd work the hardest on driving wedges between the individual colonies. The war will still happen, but if its confined to new England, without southern or mid-Atlantic support, it has a much lower chance of succeeding, and the knock-on effects of a failed revolution will be substantial.

[smurf]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Read up on the background of the Reform Bill of 1832. The sensible solution is wildly unlikely in this context. Having watched British films and read British fiction, although I'm not making a claim of special expertise, I notice that people who use the word "democracy" as if it was a pejorative, were a recognized type into the 1970s. Now, a recognized type isn't the same as an actual cultural group, and types outlast the groups they represent, but there's plenty of evidence that Britain's elites always saw democracy as equal to social revolution well into the 20th century.

Your solution would have worked, but neither the Kings nor the parliaments would have tolerated your solution until the early 20th century.

My Dissertation was on the Reform Riots in 1831, I also went beyond my own City to look at the surrounding areas for a Masters, but I think it was not marked due to a myriad of things going on in my life.

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

To be fair, they had the French Revolution as an example of how noble ideals could lead to things going seriously sour. So it wasn't just reactionary stubbornness...

The French Revolution (1789) was late on the scene or rather the last in the Great Bourgeois Revolutions. The Dutch lead the way circa 1585, the English set about 1642 to 1649 and the American Revolution was 1776 to 1783.

The nuance of the Reform Act was that the English already had their Bourgeois Revolution and Political Revolution in 1688-9. The Reform Act so the ousting of the Duke of Wellington, and even William IV had problems signing it, Wellington admitted to the Tories to get the Bill passed even if that meant supporting Earl Grey's Whigs. The Riots in October 1831 were a major factor in getting the Bill through in 1832.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

That is typical of politics. Things get a an association unrelated to any rational assessment of their advisability. Perhaps there is something to be said for that; you can't know a political system by it's abstract description.

In any case, France had just been their enemy. As usual. So being reluctant to use French language habits, even when they meant something that English thought they had gotten right is understandable.

It was the last time France and the UK would fight out right. Both joined in Greek Independence in 1825, Together against the Russians in Crimea, albeit there was a spat in 1869 when the French opened the Suez and the British sailed a warship down it first and with the economic crisis of 1873 the British bought up the Egyptian share of the Suez in 1875, invaded Egypt in 1882 and set about dominating the African coast line with invasions into Sudan when took a decade or so of conflict.

IMO the British have never had 'enemies' but allies of convenience.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by smurf

My Dissertation was on the Reform Riots in 1831, I also went beyond my own City to look at the surrounding areas for a Masters, but I think it was not marked due to a myriad of things going on in my life.



The French Revolution (1789) was late on the scene or rather the last in the Great Bourgeois Revolutions. The Dutch lead the way circa 1585, the English set about 1642 to 1649 and the American Revolution was 1776 to 1783.

The nuance of the Reform Act was that the English already had their Bourgeois Revolution and Political Revolution in 1688-9. The Reform Act so the ousting of the Duke of Wellington, and even William IV had problems signing it, Wellington admitted to the Tories to get the Bill passed even if that meant supporting Earl Grey's Whigs. The Riots in October 1831 were a major factor in getting the Bill through in 1832.



It was the last time France and the UK would fight out right. Both joined in Greek Independence in 1825, Together against the Russians in Crimea, albeit there was a spat in 1869 when the French opened the Suez and the British sailed a warship down it first and with the economic crisis of 1873 the British bought up the Egyptian share of the Suez in 1875, invaded Egypt in 1882 and set about dominating the African coast line with invasions into Sudan when took a decade or so of conflict.

IMO the British have never had 'enemies' but allies of convenience.

But it was usual at the time for the ally of convenience to be not-france.

And no it wasn't the last time. Britain fought against Vichy though it is seldom remembered.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by smurf

My Dissertation was on the Reform Riots in 1831, I also went beyond my own City to look at the surrounding areas for a Masters, but I think it was not marked due to a myriad of things going on in my life.



The French Revolution (1789) was late on the scene or rather the last in the Great Bourgeois Revolutions. The Dutch lead the way circa 1585, the English set about 1642 to 1649 and the American Revolution was 1776 to 1783.

There were some fundamental differences between the American and French Revolutions, though. Even at the time, many in Europe looked to America as the 'prototype' of what they hoped would come of the French version, but in fact there was a philosophical difference that turned out to be important.

Before the French Revolution, as Jacques Barzun pointed out, the word 'revolution' was assumed to mean something different in English than it did afterward. Originally, a 'revolution' meant just that, a turning of a cyclical wheel, a 'return' to a former uncorrupt state. This might not reflect actual reality on the ground very well, but it was part of the mindset, and the American Revolution was of this ilk. Except for a few like Paine, most of the American leaders tried to ground their revolution in English ideals, they preferred to at least try to connect it to Magna Carta or the Petition of Right rather than theoretical new ideals.

The French Revolution is the event that changed the meaning of the English language word 'revolution' to what it is now, a change toward the new, at least in theory. I strongly suspect this difference in mindset played a major role in why the two played out so differently.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by ericthered

If I was a time-traveler trying to mess up the american revolution, I'd work the hardest on driving wedges between the individual colonies. The war will still happen, but if its confined to new England, without southern or mid-Atlantic support, it has a much lower chance of succeeding, and the knock-on effects of a failed revolution will be substantial.

It could certainly be done. There were deep divisions between the Colonies, esp. between big and small Colonies and the northern and southern Colonies. In fact, it was in part because of bad decision making in London that they held together as well as they did in the crisis.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

There were some fundamental differences between the American and French Revolutions, though. Even at the time, many in Europe looked to America as the 'prototype' of what they hoped would come of the French version, but in fact there was a philosophical difference that turned out to be important.

Before the French Revolution, as Jacques Barzun pointed out, the word 'revolution' was assumed to mean something different in English than it did afterward. Originally, a 'revolution' meant just that, a turning of a cyclical wheel, a 'return' to a former uncorrupt state. This might not reflect actual reality on the ground very well, but it was part of the mindset, and the American Revolution was of this ilk. Except for a few like Paine, most of the American leaders tried to ground their revolution in English ideals, they preferred to at least try to connect it to Magna Carta or the Petition of Right rather than theoretical new ideals.

The French Revolution is the event that changed the meaning of the English language word 'revolution' to what it is now, a change toward the new, at least in theory. I strongly suspect this difference in mindset played a major role in why the two played out so differently.

Read The Expanding Bllaze by Jonathan Israel. Johnathan Israel is the historian on the origins of radical politics in the Atlantic world. The French Revolution was hijacked by Maximillen Robespierre a reactionary. Those called "the moderates" were the real radicals. Robespierre was a right-wing populist far closer to Marine Le Pen or Nigel Farage than anyone we'd call radical. Just look at the policies Robespierre repealed. He clamped down on women's rights executing those that demanded suffrage and citizenship, he brought back slavery, and he restored property qualifications for male sufferage. This last just as Americans were starting the movement to eliminate such restrictions in the USA.

The American Revolution came close to being hijacked, but we had Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, and Paine, when we needed them most. This nation's leaders, including Washington, Adams, Morris, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and many others referred to the American as "Painite." Until well into Washington's second term. And the American people were, for a surprising length of time, proudly supportive of the French Revolution.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Read The Expanding Bllaze by Jonathan Israel. Johnathan Israel is the historian on the origins of radical politics in the Atlantic world. The French Revolution was hijacked by Maximillen Robespierre a reactionary. Those called "the moderates" were the real radicals. Robespierre was a right-wing populist far closer to Marine Le Pen or Nigel Farage than anyone we'd call radical. Just look at the policies Robespierre repealed. He clamped down on women's rights executing those that demanded suffrage and citizenship, he brought back slavery, and he restored property qualifications for male sufferage. This last just as Americans were starting the movement to eliminate such restrictions in the USA.

Calling Robespierre a 'reactionary' is meaningless. That entire set of terminology and the frame of reference it refers to originates in the French Revolution.

Robespierre was a radical, just a different flavor of radical than his rivals. He would have kept one set of traditional behaviors (male dominance, slavery, etc.), but he hated the Catholic Church and Christianity generally, traditional measures of time (he wanted a 10 day week), etc. He was just as much of the Jacobin faction as Danton or Marat. He had economic socialist leanings, and he thought he could restart society from zero. Other radicals, if they had been in control instead of Robespierre, would have tried to keep different aspects of the society and eliminate others, but they were all radicals. The genuine moderates had been sidelined, and the royalists consistently shot themselves in the foot when dealing with the radicals.

The American Revolution came close to being hijacked, but we had Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, and Paine, when we needed them most.

Paine was a radical, and out of step with the actuality of the American Revolution. In later years he became somewhat bitter about it,, and hated Washington's pragmatism. But it was precisely that pragmatism that America needed to avoid France's fate.

Jefferson and Madison, yes, they played a major role in keeping the American Revolution from turning into a nightmare, along with Adams, and esp. Washington and Hamilton.

This nation's leaders, including Washington, Adams, Morris, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and many others referred to the American as "Painite." Until well into Washington's second term. And the American people were, for a surprising length of time, proudly supportive of the French Revolution.

Yeah, they talked Painite. They behaved very differently. The revolution they actually led and implemented was minimalist, where the French Revolution attempted to be maximalist.

The American public supported what they thought French Revolution was, just as many of the radicals in Paris thought the American Revolution was a prototype for theirs. Paine so supported it that he went to France, ended up imprisoned, and barely got away with his life. Jefferson was initially infatuated with the French Revolution as well, but he cooled on it as its reality became apparent.

The American Revolution precisely did not try to restart from zero, though it had some supporters domestically who thought that was the goal. They were suppressed fairly hard when they became a threat to take the American Revolution in the same direction as the French one.

An RPG campaign set during this period might easily play off the contrasts between the pragmatists and the idealists on both sides of the Atlantic.

You could also set a campaign in the immediate post-Revolutionary period. It might even have been possible for a time traveler to convince one or more of the post-Revolutionary States to rejoin with Britain, if you could drive inter-State rivalries hard enough. The 13 States came close to flying apart on their own trajectories several times in those early years, and if that had happened, alliance with Britain would have been a natural option for at least some. (Spain would have been a possibility for some of the southern States, that was actually threatened at times before the Constitution was written).

Another possibility for a time traveler who wanted to force American and Britain into a convergence of interests earlier would be to convince Napoleon not to sell the Louisiana Purchase to the USA, or convince Congress to force its rejection (this last might not be that hard). That would heavily limit the options for westward expansion, or force would-be settlers to live under French (or some other power if somebody else ended up buying the Purchase). An America confined to the eastern seaboard would have been forced to turn more seaward, which could push them either into more conflict with Britain or into alliance, depending.