What if the American Revolution had failed?

This is one of many instances where the War for Independence could have fizzled out that I mentioned in the post on Canada not joining the War for Independence.

Why Did Canada Refuse to Join the American Revolution?

I like to point out how we already have a British North America: Canada. This points out some of the ways that the War for Independence could have fizzled: besides the ways it also came close to fizzling in on its own.

Independence wasn't as much of a certainty as people would like to think. The Colonies would have lost had it not have gained support from European powers: in particular, France. I would also add that there were some people in England who supported Independence for the Colonies.

Interestingly, most of the Loyalists who left the colonies ended up moving to what would become Canada.

And here's one of the scenarios where the British could have crushed the War for Independence early on.

French Guns, not private arms won the War for Independence

This myth needs to die a quick death.

'America Could Not Have Won The War Without France'

Tant pis pour vous, car ces singes mangeurs de fromage sont la seule véritable raison pour laquelle vous avez votre indépendance. Auriez-vous pu continuer à voler des provisions pour poursuivre votre révolte si les Européens n'étaient pas intervenus ? Pas de tout!

Loyalist Networks and the Coming of the American Revolution in New York ...

As I said in an earlier post: British North America isn't that hard an alternative reality since it's called Canada. The British North America Acts, 1867–1975, are a series of acts of Parliament that were at the core of the Constitution of Canada. Most were enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and some by the Parliament of Canada. So, being a tory didn't mean one was against "independence", it just meant that any change in status had to come through a lawful process. Rebellion is not a lawful means. 

I agree with Christopher Minty that the Loyalist side of the story needs to be told.

After all, this person was a Boston tory who said that he would prefer to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away than three thousand tyrants a mile away.

O Lord our God arise,
Scatter his enemies,
And make them fall!
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all!

Would You Have Joined the American Revolution?

You might be surprised! And that's not my tory speaking. 

Britain's Forgotten Riflemen: Deadly Sharpshooters of the Revolution

Another myth about the war for independence bites the dust.

American Independence From the British Perspective

The move for independence wouldn't have happened had the French won in the Seven Years/French and Indian War. That opened up the west and got rid of a threat (the French and Indians). Of course, it opened up a bunch of other problems.

The main one being "who's gonna pay for this?"

But war was definitely not the answer.

Footnote to all this: The colonists weren't too keen on paying taxes anyway as Ben Franklin found out in 1759 with the Albany Plan. Franklin wrote: "The colonial assemblies and most of the people were narrowly provincial in outlook, mutually jealous, and suspicious of any central taxing authority."

American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World

I've been hearing that the War for Independence wasn't a war against a foreign foe, but was a civil war. Toss in how much it messed up the country whether the foe was domestic or foreign. Part of my fascination for this is that the scholars who address this issue point out that Tory meant conservative, as it still does.

Even more interesting to me is that there were many more loyalists out there than most people realise. Particularly in the southern states. I've seen comments where people from the south will say there were battles fought without a British presence during the War for Independence. I would also add the coercive nature of the rebels, particularly in New England.

Toss in that the militia needed to be under some form of civilian control, which is really what the "well-regulated" means. Even if you want to use the "well trained" meaning, there needs to be some form of structure because fighting a war requires a lot more than just being a good shot. There has to be discipline and serious drill, which comes from, well, organised training. Or as the Supreme Court said in Presser, which pretty much dealt with the militia:

The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of Congress or law of the State authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the State and Federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The Constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.

The issue was the common defence and how it would be structured. not personal weaponry.

Unless you can show me those exact words in the constitution, then you're wrong and I am right because it does make it clear if you go a little beyond "we the people"  that the document addresses the common defence.

Myth Busting the American Riflemen of the Revolution Part 2: The Septics were the better troops.

The myth is that the minutemen drove them out at Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill. Not at all. 

Myth Busting the American Riflemen of the Revolution

Yet another myth goes down the crapper.


And while we're at it, the guns used by the Rebels were either English Brown Besses or French Charleville. The Navigation Acts pretty much precluded any home made guns by the Americans. BTW, note that the Brown Bess has "Tower", as in Tower of London, which is where the Royal Armoury is located and GR with a crown showing it was property of the British Government. I think there broad arrows as well, which means this was British government property.

In other words, the guns were STOLEN!


And stop calling the French "Cheese eating, surrender monkeys" since the US wouldn't exist without their help. Besides, the Swiss fit the cheese eating description much better if you know Swiss history.

Tory during the American War for Independence didn't mean they were against independence.

 It sort of amuses me that one line of alternative history is the what if the 13 Colonies had remained united with Great Britain. The reason that it amuses me is that alternative played out: in Canada. Anyone familiar with Canadian history knows this, but the short form from Wikipedia:

The term Tory was first used to designate the pre-Confederation British ruling classes of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, known as the Family Compact and the Château Clique, an elite within the governing classes and often members within a section of society known as the United Empire Loyalists (UEL). The United Empire Loyalists were American loyalists from the Thirteen Colonies who resettled elsewhere in British North America during or after the American Revolutionary War.

Interestingly,  The terms "Tory" and "Loyalist" also were used in the American Revolution for those who remained loyal to the British Crown. Surprisingly, about 80% of the Loyalists remained in the United States after the war. The 60,000 or so Loyalists who settled in Nova Scotia, Quebec, the Bahamas, or returned to Great Britain after the American War of Independence are known as United Empire Loyalists. Unlike the UEL, Loyalists in the states didn't make as much of a fuss. In fact, they are incredibly hard to learn about.

 Tory conservativism is the type of conservativism that wants to follow the law and uphold the established social order, which is why Canada worked peacefully toward its "independence" from Britain. Hence, the British loyalty oath is:

I, [Insert full name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles (o whoever the monarch happens to be), his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

The loyalist take on US independence is vastly different with the British not spending much time on it and Canadians dealing with the movement from "la conquête" and a bit beyond. If you're lucky, you will be treated to the chaos which were the early years of the republic. I suggest the two series The War that Made America and Rebels and Redcoats.

The reason I would start the movement for independence starting with the French and Indian War. The easiest way for Britain to have kept the 13 colonies would have been to have said to General Braddock not to leave port until the colonists had come up with money to pay for their defence.

And to bugger off if they didn't.

Fortunately (Unfortunately?), the French weren't as interested in its North American territory as they were with the Caribbean ones. Had the Seven Years War turned out differently, the Colonists might have been incredibly tight with Britain realising that was their best bet for any serious defence.



When the bill arrived for the French and Indian War, the colonists were highly upset. They didn't learn their lesson: that war isn't the answer since it costs a lot of money. That is a lesson which is neglected in US history of the War for Independence.

The taxes weren't illegal, they were the bill for their defence.

But the colonists begged, borrowed, and stole their way through the War for Independence. And Louis XVI lost his head because its support for the colonists helped bankrupt France. 

The newly independent colonists sort of learned their lesson, but that also turned out to be a mess. After all, a few of the complaints from the Declaration of Independence were:

• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
• For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
• He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
• He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

And as the video above pointed out, they colonists weren't interested in paying taxes: even if it came from their own government. 

War was not the answer and the tories have been proven to be correct. The better course of action would have been to have worked peacefully within the legal framework since the War for Independence resulted in a mess which has lingered into modern times.

 

Trump wants to annex Canada. Que le spectacle commence !

 Trump has got to be one of the most ignorant people to lead the United States: and that's a pretty bad statement.

While on paper the US has a military advantage, Trump shows a link to George Washington. Washington thought he was a miltary genius, but he was another arrogant property investor who just happened to have started a world war.

One which the British decided to make the colonists foot the bill for, which led to the War for Independence. Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that the real war which should have been lost in the 18th Century was not the one for Independence, but the "French and Indian War". The reality was that French didn't really care about their North American territories (the Caribbean and South American ones being more significant).

However, had the French put a bit more effort into supporting their Native Allies and pushed harder in other parts of the world, things would be vastly different.

On the other hand, the Québec Act was something that also stirred up the American Colonists. 

M. Trump will acquire a population of rather militant francophones who have the advantage of speaking a form of French which most people don't learn in school!

Tabernac! Osti!

While I can understand Québecois when it's written, there are some accents which are totally incomprehensible to me. And trust me, it's a standard joke in the Francophone world that Québecois is very different from what the French Ministry of Education and Foreign Ministry would like people to speak like.

Unfortunately, the Québecois haven't picked up on septante, huitante, and nonante, but that's another matter. I'm going to give a plug for someone who has been helping me cope with Québecois (and finally understand what Martin is saying in Jésus de Montreal, "street slang"). https://maprofdefrancais.ca/

Actually, I sort of can understand it with a transcript: « Sacrament, voici l’agneau sans taches, osti. Y est coloué (cloué) par nos impurs désirs tabarnak! Ç’a pas de câlisse de ciboire de bon sens, ça , viarge bout de crisse! » « Certain, osti » « J’ai-tu mon câlisse de voyage, moé?! » « moi aussi tabernacle » tabernacle »

 

The fun bit is that the Acadiens (Cajuns) have a bit of a headstart on the francophonisation. They have the accent.

 It's gonna be La revanche des berceaux with a vengence when we francophones get more militant!

TIGUIDOU !!!!!

CANADA for President 2016; or the US of "Eh?"

Not a serous possibility, sadly, given our constitutional limitation to natural born citizens (even if we can reasonably assume we know what that means, absent a SCOTUS decision on it).  

On the other hand.....Rubio is shooting his ads for president in Canada. While far too many Americans are weak on geography, as we see here, and especially conservatives as we see here, I think we can safely argue that we don't want a president who is weak on which side of the border is Canada and which side is the old US of eh?, er A. But it is conservatives who are the weakest on geography :  

Worryingly, but hardly surprisingly, the poll also found that the further a poll respondent thought Ukraine was from its real location, the more likely he was to support US military intervention in Ukraine. Few Americans could find Iraq (Eye-raq to most), Afghanistan, or Iran (Eye-ran) on the map. “Let’s get those dirty Commies,” goes the latest wave of war fever to sweep the US, “if we can only find them!” Some respondents put Ukraine in Australia, or South America. Interestingly, the poll found that the group least able to locate Ukraine was +65 year olds – core Republican voters.

From the STrib:

OOPS — RUBIO AD IS SET IN CANADA The scenes and narration mimic Ronald Reagan’s legendary ad “Morning Again in America.” But Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio’s new ad of the same name opens with a shot of Vancouver, Canada. “It’s morning again in America,” the ad begins with shots of a harbor, city street and suburban neighborhood. “Today, more men and women are out of work than ever before in our nation’s history.”

Well, if they can't run in our elections, then at least those enterprising Canuks have an alternative to our more toxic politics (from facebook):

Cape Breton Island: Website Invites Americans to Move to Canadian Island if Donald Trump Is Elected

The website, cbiftrumpwins.com, was created by radio host Rob Calabrese of Sydney, Nova Scotia. He says he has gotten serious inquiries since launching the site, news outlets reported.