this post was submitted on 13 May 2026
56 points (98.3% liked)
Slop.
861 readers
608 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments


Nah, even a minor change in strategy after the capture of New York would've destroyed the Continental Army and led to a likely British victory, and after 1778 even a slight uptick in naval deployment would've forced the French out (that ridiculously narrow ass margin in the Chesapeake), the British were just being cheap
That's not what I was saying; my point is slave revolts in the Caribbean served as a catalyst and supercharged abolitionism in Britain by giving abolition an imperial logic and elite social sanction (even if the elites were politically divided and Jacobins weren't popular in themselves); the fear of slave revolts served to sour British elites on slavery as an imperial enterprise
The French Revolution absolutely triggered slave revolts in the Caribbean, but the slave revolts themselves didn't create some grand upsurge of moralistic feeling; no, even better, it led to elite terror at the idea that slavery would generate more Jacobinistic radicalism, which in its own cynical way had a profound effect on the prospects of abolitionism everywhere
Absolutely not. the Battle of Long Island, though it could have been concluded with that heap of a douchebag Washington on a tree, was in our TL an overwhelming British victory. you don't automatically win the war by pressing that more. They still needed to take Philly.
The congress was still active and frankly, sans Washington, they would have had a better command staff.
Focusing on taking useless cities and not pursuing the reeling Continental Army to its destruction is precisely why the British lost, they treated the war as a peer-to-peer conflict and naively believed taking the capitals would end the war
If the Continental Army had disintegrated, the blow to morale and legitimacy would've been absolute, and the colonial loyalists would've won the day politically, especially in the south