TYR (a.harrowell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
) wrote:
: On Jul 7, 4:54=A0am, bm2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
: > Greetings and salutations.
: >
: > In the recent "US loses the revolution" thread, Tenner mentioned Tom
: > Fleming's views on the probable consequences, which included this line
: >
: > "With their wonderful combination of hypocrisy and
: > arrogance, the King's men would have contined to assure themselves
: > that
: > "British liberty" was prospering at home among the 250,000
: > enfranchised
: > voters out of a population of 8 million."
: >
: > But, given the fact that Great Britain was in the middle of the
: > industrial revolution, and probably the grandest expansion of wealth
: > in history to that point, how sustainable is that narrow a franchise?
: >
: > The middle cl***** are going to be expanding, and with them, the % of
: > people with political power purchasing wealth. On the other hand, we
: > have a rapidly expanding industrial workforce, which even in the
: > absence of the French revolution and Karl Marx, is probably going to
: > find literate people to find theoretical justifications for their
: > discontent. (Peasant rebellions rarely have gone anywhere, but the
: > urban proletariat has a better idea of where you live.)
: >
: > So, proposed: the narrow oligarchy, even in the absence of the example
: > of a successful American revolution [1], is either going to expand
: > over the next century in an evolutionary manner as OTL, if perhaps a
: > bit slower, or there's going to be a messy explosion at some point. On
: > our TL the British ruling cl***** managed the dilution of their power
: > very well indeed: would they have been clumsier and less willing to
: > compromise if they had been victorious over the first great democratic
: > revolution?
: >
: > Bruce
: >
: > [1] Or, for that matter, a French one. It would be an amusing AH irony
: > if the absence of an American example led to a less radical - and in
: > at least the short-to-medium run, more successful - French revolution.
: You have to wonder what the influence of alt-New England would have
: been on the centre; so many Commonwealthsmen were returnees from the
: Colonies (like Hugh Peters and Henry Vane), and a lot ended up there
: as refugees.
Arguably, the American colonies were revolting against the England they
had left behind (typically pre-1688), and that had the governance of the
American colonies better reflected the England of the late 18th century
(weak crown, a prime minister responsible to the elected assembly,
nobility increasingly reflecting "new money", etc.), there wouldn't have
been a revolution. The government in London thought that the Americans
were colonials, and the Americans thought they were English and didn't
like being regarded as mere colonists.
|
