While I have not read this book, I've heard many people claim the American Colonial victory at Saratoga is what convinced France to formally ally with the rebels and openly declare war on the British. This development forced the British to fight on more than one front, which allowed the Colonial forces to eke out a victory 4 years later. I've heard many people claim that if France hadn't intervened at this time, the British would have been able to devote more manpower to the colonies and would have crushed the rebellion within the following year.

May I ask what you mean by "a major change of heart on the part of the British Parliament"? I know there were MPs who were sympathetic to the American Colonists, but the fact that the war in the Americas dragged on until 1781 seems to indicate that they didn't have enough political clout to make a difference.

(Reply) (Thread)

I agree completely that the victory at Saratoga gave the French the encouragement that they needed to support the rebellion. This author suggests that had the British commander in New York sortied to support Burgoyne that the war would have gone differently; I can even accept this. However, the remainder of the book is too unbelieveable for me to pursue more deeply. He states that the Parliament would have changed their views on the laws that led to the Revolution, and I don't that would have happened. I suspect, rather, that there would have been a more oppressive governance of the colonies, with military occupation and lots of hangings. The book also suggests that there would have been a much larger French and Spanish presence in North America, and that those who had pursued independence from Britain would have built a nation in the Spanish colonies which he calls "The United States of Mexico". Because I don't agree with the author about the relatively gentle treatment that the British would have given a cowed group of American colonies, I won't bother finishing the book.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Oh. Yeah. I agree with you: The Crown and Parliament had *MANY* reasons for keeping the American Colonies in line; that's why the British kept fighting for another 4 years after France got involved. Consequently, I do believe that the British would have "tightened the screws" even more if they had successfully crushed the rebellion. While there were a few MPs who tried to speak for the American Colonists, they had virtually no success in getting anyone of import to listen before the rebellion started, and I doubt the war would have improved that situation.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I thought it would be an interesting thought experiment when I took it out of the library (or, even longer ago, put it on my Amazon wish list), but the fellow didn't change just one aspect of history, he changed many, and I felt that that was cheating.

OTOH, I do like alternate history novels in general, but only if they follow a single change in history.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)