New What If: King George Comes to Philly

1,726 Views | 7 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by VanZandt92
aalan94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So right now I'm reading "The Radicalism of the American Revolution" by Gordon S. Wood, which is one of the most enlightening books I've ever read on American History. He talks about how Americans viewed monarchy and how that was different from the English. He makes a number of points about how Americans were cut off from the "majesty" of the empire and apart from the political deprivations (which were relatively minor) this made the break from England easier.

So I imagined this scenario:

Following the Stamp Act Crisis, King George decides to come to America on an official visit. They sail to New York, then to Philly and lay on the pomp and circumstance. Boston, I'm not sure about. But the point is, they show that the royal is concerned about America, possibly throw parliament under the bus a little.

There would have to be something that comes out of it. Give some kind of home rule, or permanently relocate some major dukedom to the U.S. Perhaps make the heir the Prince of America rather than the Prince of Wales. I do think that American autonomy is inevitable, but not necessarily independence. If the British had developed the later commonwealth before the crisis, there maybe becomes a chance to stay. If the crisis is somehow delayed for 25 years, does it change things?

Just a thought experiment. Take it whichever way you wish. Go!
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
An offer of home rule, or even requiring funds from the colonies to be collected in whatever manner the colonies desire, before about 1773 could have prevented the Revolution entirely. The radicals would not have been satiated, but gaining lower and middle class support would have been much more difficult.
coyote68
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Screw king george. Burn his ship and let him swim home.
CrazedAggieFan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Philly would boo him. Just like they did Santa Claus.
The Original AG 76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
sea voyages were EXTREMELY dangerous at best back then. No Monarch would ever consider the risk of a cross Atlantic trip. Even simple channel crossing was considered a risk back in the 18th century.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
By the way, the book "The King's Three Faces," covers the evolution of colonial attitudes towards the monarchy leading up the Revolution. It's well worth the read.
VanZandt92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Great topic!


I would note, however, that concentrating on Philadelphia and Boston doesn't address this:

One Hessian officer said, "Call this war by whatever name you may, only call it not an American rebellion; it is nothing more or less than a Scotch Irish Presbyterian rebellion."[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_Americans#cite_note-LeyburnNoPage-44][44][/url] A British major general testified to the House of Commons that "half the rebel Continental Army were from Ireland".[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_Americans#cite_note-53][53][/url] Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, with its large Scotch-Irish population, was to make the first declaration for independence from Britain in the Mecklenburg Declaration of 1775.[[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipediaisputed_statement]disputed[/url]]

Additionally, some of the pre-Revolutionary turmoil in the south resulted in the North Carolina Regulators, caused mostly by local crookedness and crookedness of the king's agents, rather than the Governor of NC.

Also, I dont think it addresses the pressure by AMericans to move west into Indian territory and the reluctance by Britain to allow them to do so.

The rice kings of South Carolina - I'm not sure where they'd stand.

Just some thoughts, but thanks for the intriguing post.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Regulators don't easily align with Revolutionary divisions. Many of their leaders and members were Loyalists during the conflict. It's why the person of the king is interesting as a point of discussion. The colonists' faith in the monarch was the last thing to go during the period of imperial crisis. Once that faith died, it died hard, and the king absorbed almost all of the vitriol previously reserved for Parliament and royal agents.
VanZandt92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yeah, I guess some questions would be, what would have happened in Boston rather than the intermittent insurrection that took place for years.

Philadelphia - I'm not intimate with the level of resistance there.

Virginia - The frontier issues were different than those of the coast, i.e. Williamsburg etc. People were moving west. Britain stood in the way.

Carolinas - backcountry - settled by the Scots Irish who were quite averse to royal policies and bristled with antagonism against the Anglican Church, among other things. They had come to America to escape disenfranchisement. They weren't going to take it any longer.

George Washington - It is good to understand what caused him to resist. If the crown had his loyalty, the outcome may have been different.

My take is that there was much incentive to become independent outside of Boston. Perhaps it would have taken longer, but the momentum might have been there.

The War of Regulation - demonstrated an ability to resist.

It was just a matter of time. We were going to be independent.

Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.