I've heard many takes online that things would have been so much better, that slavery would have ended peacefully and that there wouldn't be so much nationalism in the United States. But then I've also heard people saying that the British Empire wasn't much better at its peak. I don't really know what to believe at this point, but that's fine. Let's have a sober discussion about this. Thanks.
We’d get ours quicker than Canada. The revolution being put down wouldn’t stop the colonies organizing against British policies, and after a few decades we would probably get home rule at a minimum…or actual MPs to placate us.
The British still had more rights than most Europeans back then, and once the ball got rolling, the idea of independence wouldn’t stop until we were our own thing. It would probably happen around the 1830s when they abolished slavery, and it would be clear by that point we couldn’t be controlled anymore.
It’s not like they made more money trading with us than taxing us in the first place. That’s why our independence IRL wasn’t as bad for the British as they originally thought. They still got the money from trade…and didn’t have to pay to defend us anymore. It was a win-win in the long term, and even led to us providing half of the food that the British isles needed to feed its people in the end.
That's an alt-history I think about sometimes. The British decided taxation with representation was not the worst and created a sort of imperial senate holding representatives from the colonies. Could it speed up the empires breakup, or would it cement british dominance? As you noted what would happen when the royal navy decides its had enough of the slave trade.
I would imagine the 13 colonies would still be part of empire at least into the late 19th century. Although it would depend on how far the war lasted. If it stops early people are just saying taxes,representation etc not bad. Later on yh they'll be more independent.
Independance was won largely to the thanks of the French and Spanish joining the party. America was deemed lower priority at that point with more supplies going to Gibraltar, a really big rock, than the 13 colonies.
The 1830s is close to the end of the napoleonic wars as well so the royal navy would be running around with a massive stiffy
I think slavery would end up being abolished later than the 1830s. The British were able to do it so easily and so soon because post-Revolution their slave holding lands were pretty small. Just some islands. However, even then, the amount of money paid in compensation to the slave owners was staggering and I think it wasn't fully paid off until something like the 1950s.
In this timeline the American south would be too large to force a ban on slavery and the Empire would placate the south. They might be able to pull off a peaceful gradual compensated abolition, but that would be very expensive and requires the south being willing to compromise- historically the south broke pretty much every promise it gave to the North. So I could see a second revolution breaking out, in the age of nationalism, over slavery.
Final tax payments to compensate Slave Owners was 2015
All those slave owners should've been killed instead.
Slavery wasn't fully banned in British ruled India until 1861, so I could see them make a similar carve out for their American colonies.
Except — the southern colonies became the economically significant southern states on cotton (and by the 1860s, Egypt and South Asia were a cheaper source of raw cotton than the Americas). Sugar from the Caribbean wasn’t something the southern colonies, later southern states, could ever really compete with, so it’s hard to tell.
It's still a pretty massive land area and a lot of slave owners to negotiate the end of slavery with
True — but had the American Revolution failed, I doubt the land otherwise acquired under the Louisiana Purchase would have provided expansion of the southern states, so differences in control of land most likely would have kept the original thirteen colonies as one administrative area, distinct from the Louisiana Purchase area (likely annexed by Britain after Napoleon’s defeat or maybe annexed by Mexico).
I'm sure th e British would have conquered that area against Napoloen I
Oh, I believe the revolution could easily have been stopped. And there were many proposals from the Colonists to make them even "More British". Primarily, they simply wanted representation in Parliament. Many proposals were floated to allow actual representatives, as well as setting up formal counties with actual nobility so they could have representation in the House of Lords.
But Parliament outright rejected any such proposals, and that ultimately led to war. Even many of the nobility wanted to see a noble class raised in the colonies, as that would give them more influence as well.
It was a modern day version of the Social War, the whole thing could have been avoided if they were just directly incorporated as actual citizens with full rights.
A big part of that trade was cheap cotton, grown on plantations with slaves. Paid workers would have eaten into that margin, and the Southern states may even try breaking away again because of how slavery was entrenched in their economy and way of life. This was a major incentive for Texas to break away from Mexico.
If the colonists got to elect a few seats in Parliament that would have taken a lot of air out of any revolutionary fervor , probably only 25% of the population was actually in favor of independence, and half of the population didn’t care either way .
I’d imagine that the continental congress would still be around in some form as well after a failed revolution, just in a more loyalist form. It would work as the colonies’ own parliament(similar to how some parts of Great Britain had their own), and be the vehicle that would deliver our reps to the House of Lords and commons if we got representation.
It sounds way more feasible than running elections from an ocean away, and would allow for the Americans to mostly run their own affairs still as long as they declared war on the right people and didn’t violate too many borders with other colonial powers.
It would also lead to my idea of us getting our independence in the early to mid-1800s once nationalism became a force, and the British would be too distracted by European affairs to snuff out the second independence movement.
The British supported the confederacy and built warships for them. They didnt give a shit about slavery unless it was convenient. They needed cotton badly and were the British in control slavery would be around for significantly longer.
British firms supported the confederacy. When the actual British government found out they usually impounded the guns and ships that were found more often than not. They weren’t dumb enough to piss off the north, which was the source of half of Great Britain’s food supply at the time.
EDIT:
One more thing. The French and British replaced their American cotton supply with plantations in India and Egypt in a few years. The south’s one bargaining chip was replaced and dwarfed by India and Egypt in less than a decade.
No the UK government absolutely supported the confederacy they just never officially recognized it as a country and opened formal diplomacy. See: the Trent affair. Two confederate envoys on board a royal mail steamer. Those companies had tacit approval from the UK government.
Also, yes I'm sure cotton output soon dwarfed that of the south. The industrial revolution was happening. Production of everything doubled and tripled.
The Washington treaty after the war found the UK responsible for damages to the US and the arbitration council had the UK pay 15.5 million to the US. So it's not just me that feels this way.
Side note: I expected you to be British. Hello, fellow Syracusian.
A lot of that actually came about because they lost the Revolutionary War. That was a slap in the face of Parliament, and they started to realize they could not treat their "European Colonies" as if they were a bunch of "Wogs". They considered themselves "British", and they had to accept that and treat them as such or it would be repeated over and over again.
Oh, they still did continue to act that way in other parts of the world, but those they colonized that had lower native populations and the majority of European stock (British or not) had to be given more autonomy or they would likely rise in revolt also.
One of the largest factors of Canada gaining independence was how expensive it was to defend against the USA, especially how the end of the American Civil War meant that there was a massive army of veterans across the border. Without that expense or risk it's impossible to say if independence would have happened in anything approaching the same timeframe.
I often imagine 1- the CSA gaining independence, 1A- US can't afford Alaska so ti becomes Japanese or British or a personal possession of the King of Hawaii funded by fur companie (Lilioloani, Queen of Hawaii and Empress of Ilyeska!) 2- London suppressing the protest movements in Quebec and Ontario, not to mention the MEtis 3- the Remnant US making alliance with the Kaiser and building a joint arsenal of tanks, poison gas, solid-fuel rockets etc. long ebfore th eGreat war 4- the CSA (after helping Napoleon III suppress Juarez, then invading Cuba in 1871,) stagnates, still fighting mostly form horseback 5- Germany deploying the new weapons as soon as the Western Front Stagnates,a dn sweeping tot he Pyrenees , 6- the US and Mexico dismantle eh Confederacy, then US turns north, taking advantage of local discontent, making Newfoudnland-Lbrador, Quebec, Ontario, Miscousipl, adn caldonya into uSS states, leavign Britian wiht the 3 Martimes, Vancouver, queen charlotte and saome smaller islandsa, and the areaS NORHT OF 554-40
We would also likely have a parliamentary system, perhaps preventing the two party system we currently have
Perhaps, but I still think there would be two dominant parties, as it is in many commonwealth parliamentary countries, but I suppose third parties can at least get seats in government, unlike with the current system.
With or without his head attached? The Georgian period was interesting, but I don't think Britain fully recovered from the Civil Wars until WWI. Those Kings liked to dress up and engage in a few minor scrums, but our Revolution (with France's help) was too big a meal to digest. Even had George I or 2 patched things up with France, if your supply line was a thousand miles long and every engagement further angered the Home Team, what you really needed was better advice.
Elevators would be called lifts, trucks would be called lorries, trash would be called rubbish and toilets would be called loos
Funnily enough in Canada all those things are known by their American names.
Crips and Bloods would be called hooligans and scallywags.
The American Revolution changed the world in more ways than you know. The British would have excuted the revolutionaries. The French revolution might not have happened, if The American Revolution wasn't successful. Napoleon wouldn't have rose to power. The Louisiana Purchase wouldn't have happened. American expansion west wouldn't have happened.
Slavery would have died out or been outlawed.
America would not have a civil war and would not emerge as a powerhouse. Many inventors might not have emerged as America would not have much economic clout.
America would have less impact in WWI and WW2 and that could have tipped the wars the other way.
French Revolution was just as much a reaction to economic catastrophes in the 1770s and 1780s. France probably still bankrupts itself funding America to boot. So that likely still occurs
We were a single nail in a really big coffin for the French monarchy. They were already doomed to fail before we even fired the first shot…they just couldn’t see it at the time.
On top of the fact that the new US didn't exactly support the French Revolution. The American Revolution may have provided a moral inspiration but it did nothing for financial or military support .
The United States was neutral because the new nation couldn't be caught up in European entanglements.
While we’re on the topic, a big reason many colonists had for independence was to stay out of eternal European wars. They saw the history of Europe being constant wars and were already persistently involved in them on the continent because of their connection with the English. It’s a big reason why the founding fathers warned against permanent foreign alliances. Since the world wars, we have had permanent foreign alliances and have consistently sent men to fight and die in conflicts that end up serving no strategic objectives. The united states is the deciding factor between whether Moscow or kiev rule east ukraine. That’s completely insane in my opinion
In 1790 it was easy to be isolationist. A war in Ukraine wouldn’t have impact led America much. Between Britain/France/Spain, yes, East Asia had nearly no impact.
Additionally, early America had no troops, weapons, or ships to spare. Today, the weapons we consider obsolete would beat most nations on this earth.
In that case there’s virtually nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost by intervention.
Today, the world is far smaller so the war in Ukraine has a far larger impact. Plus war is different now, it’s far more about permanent conquest or the destruction of other nations.
There were a lot more forces driving the French revolution than simply the status of the American colonies.
If the US had not revolted against the British monarch, I have little doubt that the French would still have revolted against King Louis XVI.
The ideas of the American Revolution made thier way to France. That's what prompted them to ask for a constitution. Maybe discontent was brewing in France, but American ideology certainly tipped the scales and expedited the French.
Except those ideas were created in Europe. The US did not invent the ideas behind the Declaration of Independence and the constitution, those were taken from enlightenment thinkers. Some of whom were French. The American revolution did speed up the course of the French Revolution, not because of ideas but because the French basically bankrupted themselves paying for it, and then entered a war with the British right at the end. This led to taxes going up even more.
No, but the French fought a war to get America rights that they didn't have yet. That had to get thoughts going.
Yes and no. They weren’t really trying to give America rights as much as they were trying to fuck over the British. They knew that losing American colonies would significantly weaken the Empire (which was wrong actually, the British empire actually got stronger after the American revolution). The French really did not like the British and were going to do anything they could to weaken them. It was the 1700s equivalent of the US funding the mujahideen to fight the Soviets. We didn’t really want to help the afghanis, we wanted to hurt the Soviets.
The ideals that were adopted after the American and French revolutions were those of the Enlightenment, and were mostly formed in France and Britain.
While it is widely known that Thomas Jefferson spent a lot of time in Paris, it is less widely known that Thomas Paine started his political career in Britain writing the pamphlet The Case of the Officers of Excise there in 1772. Shortly after, he was invited by Jefferson to emigrate to the American colonies in 1774, where together they published the famous pamphlet Common Sense in 1776 that was to be massively influential in promoting Enlightenment ideals and American calls for independence.
Without the Napoleonic wars I doubt WW1/2 look anything like they did anyway.
If the Napoleonic wars never happen the worlds wars look nothing like our world wars.
The British would eventually take Louisiana, Florida, maybe Texas as well. (also, if the Aztecs had expelled the Spanish, the US would have eventually fought them instead of the Republica de Mejico, contrary the to the chapter in the book *What If?*)
EDIT: I GOT MY DATES MIXED UP. ITS EARLY. IM NOT AMERICAN. I WAS JUST EXCITED TO BE A NERD AND I NEED MORE COFFEE ☕☕.
Sorry.
The French Revolution was done by 1799. Napoleon was in conflict with Pope Pius VII regarding the Papal States during the time of The Revolutionary War. He had the Pope imprisoned during 1812. He became extremely sickly and was thought to be on deaths door. This culminated in the Concordat of Fontainebleau being signed (Jan 1813) The Pope recovered and in March 1813 the document was retracted and nullified.
The collapse of the French Empire took place shortly thereafter in 1814 and Pope Pius VII returned to Rome. His kidnapping, imprisonment and near death experience coloured the Catholic Church and Papal States for the nineteenth century. A schism was avoided though so that's something.
With the fall of Napoleon and Americas victory there were all new trade routes established for North America ☺️
I'm sorry, but your post seems completely irrelevant. You're giving information about Our Time Line, but if Americans lost their revolutionary war (presumably by 1783), then none of what you said would have happened (or at least, not necessarily).
You're right. I got the civil war dates mixed up with the independence conflict. My bad!
In my defense I am not American. It's morning time and I just got too excited ☺️
How embarassing for me haha. I need more coffee ☕
There *is* a case study where the US didn't secede from Britain: it's called Canada
Though much of the impetus of Canada forming was the US.
True. Canadian identity comes from basically doing whatever America didn't.
They didn't secede from the empire. They didn't have slavery They jumped head first into the world wars
Etc etc
In the case of Confederation it was more the concern over a much larger, expansionist neighbor with a similarly large army thanks to the US civil war.
Canada not only does the same things as the US in different ways, they do different things the same way.
Everyone is saying that slavery would have ended early, but is that true?
I don’t know much about British politics in the 1830. But wouldn’t the inclusion of a large slaveholding nation in the British empire have some impact on britains anti slavery policies?
They outlawed slavery in the 1830s but they also helped the American slavers prosecute an insurgency 30 years later. Is it outlandish to think they may have altered their laws to facilitate their textile mills?
Almost certainly not, although if the cotton gin isn't invented field slavery might have ended earlier on its own economic failures.
The UK didn't just say, "no more slavery, let them go" in 1834. The Empire assumed a massive debt to buy out the slaveholders - it was actually a major factor in the low level of government aid during the Famine in Ireland. But there were only ~800k slaves in the Empire in 1834. There were over 2 million in the US at the time; a similar level of compensation would have crippled the Empire economically (which they would not have done), and not compensating the slaveowners would likely have started another revolt/civil war, this time with the British Caribbean colonies joining in.
I don't think it would have made the policy makers more inclined towards slavery; the colonies wouldn't have been getting representation any time soon after a failed revolt. But the economic realities and the need to avoid fighting another expensive internal war would prevent an end to slavery on the same timeline as OTL British Empire.
It would be an interesting alternate history story where the British have to fight a rebellion of the Caribbean and American colonies
Would the northern colonies have joined in with the southern ones to defend slavery, though? That's a shit cause to fight for, and even as a mere alliance of convenience it'd be lousy PR.
That would be a really interesting element to the question.
There could be some really interesting divisions in a scenario with this. Where the different regions in America have differing objectives in regards to slavery
Before the gin allowed practical farming of inland cotton (lowland cotton w as a minor side product to tobacco, rice, naval stores, and indigo,), there were more anti-slavery societies in the South thna th e North. But the invention seems likely.
They would’ve probably done what the some of the north did IRL after independence. Gradual abolition that allowed slave owners to keep their current workforce, but ensured that anyone born after a certain date was free.
There were more than a few catches, but in NY for example, but by 1817 most slaves in NY were free with some exceptions.
England would have a very large museum at this point.
We would have ended up with a parliamentary govt based on britains system which is muuuuch better than the presidential system we have which would have greatly benefitted the country.
It's tough to say but I bet there would be a lot more Native Americans around.
Also, the country would have a very different geography (Napoleon wouldn't have sold the Louisiana territory though maybe he loses it anyway. But the Mexican-American war and even the Spanish-American war may not have happened.) Canada and the US would maybe just be one country. Not sure what the name would be though.
The oppression of native Americans was happening long before the war for independence
However, one of the complaints from the Virginian colonists had been the Crown's instistance that the treaties with the Native American tribes were to be honoured, hence a driver of that state's residents into rebellion.
The reasons weren’t ones of good morals though, but rather curbing colonial power
It was more that the UK didn't want to pay for the wars that expansion would cause with the Native Americans than curbing the colonies directly.
I think it's safe to say the Natives were going to get pushed out by any power that settled in the new world eventually
You're thinking of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia, which was 100 years prior.
Battle of Point Pleasant along the Ohio River. It was thought in Virginia that the British Army purposely refused to show up to fight the Indians hoping that the colonial militia would be defeated. The colonists ended up winning.
Oh yeah I forgot about the river engagement
True but one of the key causes of said war was a ban on settlement west of the Appalachians so
Valid, but undeniably the forced migration of the native Americans in favor of white settlers would have happened regardless if it was by the new Americans, British, French, or Spaniards. Though I’ll relent and say that there’s a chance the scale wouldn’t have been as large, but I doubt by much.
The problem was the same whether the goverment was in London or America: the government made treaties with the Native-American tribes and the settlers refused to abide by them.
The scale is my point. I’m not saying that they would be half the population or anything, but there would be a notably larger percentage than today.
Assuming France is still a player in North America, you don’t have one singular force pushing against you but instead powers competing against each other that you could potentially ally with. So different tribes would ally differently, and the Europeans would give them more regard.
There just weren't that many American Indians in North America. When tribes would unite over an area of what is today several states, they would often put no more than a few hundred men in the field. Sometimes they could muster a few thousand, but that was very rare.
Were Canada and the 13 colonies seen as separate entities back then?
MExico might not have gained independence and Britian was alwyas fighting Spain
We would have better healthcare but worse teeth.
I’m British and live in America now. I have never seen so many missing, black or nasty teeth until I came here. People are amazed when I say my teeth were all straightened free of charge. American healthcare is a joke; citizens have to go without if they cannot afford private plans
I see you've lost your British sense of humo(u)r.
British dental health is higher than USA. You just confuse fluorescence of teeth with actual health. Blame Hollywood for that.
Dental decay is way higher in the US. (Sugar in bread even, come on). Just Google British Vs American dental health and you'll see the vast results.
So OT, you wouldn't have sugar in bread, bacon, high fructose corn syrup in every food possible.
And you wouldn't have people strangling their wives in hospital because they can't afford the bills... Assuming WW2 still happens because the NHS came around in 1948 after the war.
Assuming WWII still happens, does the world have the American manufacturing industry to stop Germany? Does Mosley take power in the UK?
WW2 probably wouldn't happen as I'd assume the empire uses the entire of the America colony to crush Germany in WW1.
Then US pushes for independence as a lot of others did, being sent around around the world to die for a country they've never been to but rules over them. Essentially the Colonies were slave armies.
Whatever this country would be called would be shaped and sized very differently. Not unreasonable to think that what’s now the US and now Canada might be a variety of different, smaller, domains, commonwealths, or republics. Also not unreasonable to think that, absent an independent and assertive independent USA, Spanish or Mexican control of much of the southwest would have continued or independent countries like California, Texas, and, perhaps, others might have developed and persisted. Similarly, Russian control of Alaska and maybe even Russian colonization along the Pacific Coast would have continued.
You might have won a rugby world cup or two by now ;)
If the US lost the revolution war. Then the British would not have settled Australia when they die, and as still kept sending convicts to north America. Doing so there would have been a "scramble for Australia" where Australia would have been carved up between a few European powers.
It would have only delayed independence. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all managed a more peaceful path to independence. There's no reason to believe the US in some form would have achieved the same. Though it likely would have blunted westward expansion. Perhaps a Greater Mexico in the west by the time the US gets there?
Having already put down a violent revolution once, I really doubt that firearms would even be as free as they are now in Canada. And I think a relative lack of a gun culture, compared to how it is now in the US, would probably translate into less guns worldwide. I don't think that would necessarily result in less violence, though. People find a way.
Well, America would never likely expand past Mississippi River, and would have much closer cultural ties to the UK, likely being a constitutional monarchy aswell.
Politically, it would definitely be way better than the electoral college and 2-party system America has right now, and may eventually implement proportional representation aswell.
Economically, it would have universal health care and other welfarist policies, however it would not be the titan it is today. It would probably have a GDP of around 13 trillion, still one of the world's largest. It's population would also be far less, maybe around 150 million.
Natives would be in a much better situation, having actual states west of the Mississippi, however many Anglo settlers would still cross the border. Natives in America would also have larger numbers.
California, Texas, and other regions would retain their mexican majority, although would definitely have anglo minorities and cultural differences to Mexico City. There would be no war between Mexico and America, and Mexico may be far stronger in this timeline, or could collapse entirely.
Loyalists from the Revolutionary War never move to Ontario, so Quebec may be far larger, as French is more widespread and Canada may not form. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia go to America though, and the colonies are likely split along these linguistic lines, although I expect problems in the great lakes region.
British Colombia expands into Seattle and Oregon, and would eventually merge with the other northern colonies, with a border against Quebec. It would be far more based on the the western side. It probably has less expansion to the south, with less territory from French Lousiana.
Acadia (Lousiana) becomes it's own, French Speaking, state.
An Imperial Federation might form between Britain's settler colonies, so the 'Empire' might be a force in the cold war, with Britain's position no falling as much as it had OTL. Britain may never join the EU and might be more focused on inter-imperial trade.
Slavery gets abolished earlier in America, and the civil war becomes a southern rebellion. Its unclear what could happen here, but atleast a British pyrrhic victory is guaranteed. Civil rights moves far more quickly.
America would have a massive impact of the development of the British Empire. Irish Home Rule may actually occur, and Britain's other colonial developments may be slowed down by the Americans, and Australia and New Zealand may be colonised even later.
The USA would be a much smaller country than present day
It will be in Pax Britannica timeline where American Revolution fails and everything is going steampunk
Hard disagree with the direction this thread took.
If one major event shifts the timeline, it is foolish to assume that other events will certainly happen decades later (ie - Britain still frees slaves when they now have +2 million more.)
Imperial systems do not exist to benefit the colony, they exist for the home country. It is true that in the 1800s slavery, even colonial slavery, was becoming morally indefensible in Europe.
However - a few things to consider:
First, slavery in the southern US was not analogous to slavery in Canada and other British territories. Therefore the conclusion that the British would have still ended slavery in (the US) colonies is not a certainty, or even likely. The US didn't just keep slavery around because "America bad," but because it was as deeply ingrained into the American economy as it was vile.
Second, British oligarchs liked cheap cotton. The moral lighthouse of London had no problem building Confederate warships and supplying the CSA with weapons when financially beneficial. Britain was officially "neutral".
I'll offer the dissenting opinion that slavery would have lasted longer in a British-controlled American South because imperial systems operate to benefit the rulers, not the ruled. Remember - after the failed Revolution all those wise-guys with their ideas of equal rights and legal representation got dropped from the gallows - that part of the American consciousness does not exist in this timeline. The American colonies to not exist to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they exist only to make money. And slavery is now London's "problem" to solve. But it's an ocean away and makes them money.
What happens in the mid 1800s is anyone's guess. Could you imagine a Revolution of 1860 in which a Confederation of American states capitalized on the bloodshed of the Crimean War to overthrew their British masters to protect their way of life, and the institution of slavery? Wonder what THAT country would look like. Sure bet the queen isn't going to sacrifice 300,000 lives to free some slaves an ocean away.
No French Revolution. The entire world is very different
Slavery would have continued for much longer.
The British could only so easily outlaw slavery when they did because they no longer had a need for it after losing the colonies. If they kept them they’d have absolutely kept it in force for much longer to support the economy of the colonies.
The flip side could be true and the British empire would be much later to abolition slavery because now they have a significantly larger financial incentive to keep it around.
The British kept slavery in the Caribbean much longer than in the British Isles and some American states abolished slavery prior to Britain. Keeping the American colonies increases the influence of American slave owners in Great Britain.
I wouldn't be getting paid today to take the day off and grill.
There’s an old show, Sliders, which showed a reality where the British won the war. The world was run by a handful of Absolute Monarchy’s. The US was very much like England (The British States of America), ruled by an appointed Sheriff who reported to The King.
The Oakland Raiders playing the part of Robin Hood, IIRC.
The British empire would easily be uncontested for another 100 years
Britain would not be able to hold on to America forever. America was simply too big and too populous. It would be very expensive and exhausting for the small British Army to continually keep down the Americans. So America would get independence at a later date, maybe in the age of nationalism.
However, our Founding Fathers were a royal flush of geniuses, and Washington was an extremely rare example of restraint and character who peacefully gave up power. If they ended up being executed, our alternate Founding Fathers would pale in comparison. Expect the constitution to be a lot more poorly designed. Certain Amendments are missing, an amendment enshrining slavery is put up, the Christian amendment is put up and the separation of church and state is nullified, etc. Our first leader would probably be like Bolivar and attempt to take power for life as a dictator instead of establishing the peaceful transfer. I can imagine Federalists being in charge and Antifederalist rebellions breaking out all the time.
America has never truly fought a war on its home soil, experienced a genocide, or been occupied by a foreign nation, unlike other countries. In this world our culture and worldview would be a lot less naive and idealistic. America would be much more nationalist, xenophobic, imperialistic without caring for making the world safe for democracy.
We would probably end up being a 2nd world country and have pieces like Texas, California, New England, split off.
Respectfully I would argue America has absolutely experienced genocide, just not of Euro-Americans.
That's part of my point. Our core majority population has never experienced a genocide. America's worldview and psychology would be much different if Anglo-Americans had experienced genocide like say the Polish.
I get it, but you didn’t make that point because you didn’t specify. Saying “American has never truly… experienced a genocide” is just incorrect. Not trying to get on your case, just saying that it sounds bad
There would be little difference compared to today. Instead of one monarch we have 9 of them, and they gave themselves the power to determine if the president acts like a 10th
The same thing that happened when Bacon's Rebellion occurred a century before.
The entire Pacific Ocean would be under British controll
I've read some academic civil war books in the past, and the prolific belief among the few perspectives I've encountered is that American independence is a matter of when and how, not if; but it will have an impact on how the American continent will look down the line (US-Mexican war among others)
What is interesting, though, is how the rest of the world might have been different. Supporting US in the civil war bankrupted France, which is one of many reasons the French revolution happened. Had US lost the war due to no support from the French, I wonder if the French revolution would've been more peaceful
One layer further, the Chinese Empire during the 1700s was amidst a time of prosperity, the emperor of the time was well known to be a close pen pal with the French king. Having heard of his decapitation is believed to be one of the reasons why China entered a strict protectionism and seclusion, which sealed China away from the Industrial Revolution, leading to centuries of chaos and upheaval
Following a British victory in the American Revolution, Britain begins a process of reconciliation with their rebellious colonial subjects. They know why the colonies rebelled and they don't want that happening again so they compromise with the colonists. Parliament makes it clear that Britain has supremacy, but they adjust their laws that allow the colonists to settle past the Proclamation of 1763 line and adjust the taxes to appear more local as opposed to directives from London.
Great Britain reorganizes their North American colonies with a more centralized government that is capable of following their directives. Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Québec north of the Ohio River form the Dominion of New England with Philadelphia as the capital. Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, East Florida, West Florida, the Bahamas, Bermuda, and Québec south of the Ohio River form the Dominion of Virginia with Charleston as the capital.
Indian Territories are established in what is modern day Upstate New York/Ontario, Illinois/Wisconsin/Western Ontario, and Mississippi/Alabama. Is it perfect for the First People's? Absolutely not, but it's a better timeline than what today's Native Americans have.
The French Revolution still happens as discontent with the Bourbons still exist. However, the Revolution happens at a later date and with Napoleon being the product of perfect time/perfect place, there is no Emperor Napoleon I, Napoleonic Code, Congress of Vienna, or the Revolutions of 1848. The Europe of this timeline is radically different to the Europe of our timeline and is a much more conservative Europe. France is invaded by the Great Powers which restores the Bourbons as a constitutional monarchy.
Spain is still in decline in this timeline. While it happens later, its colonies in New Spain, New Granada, and Peru still gain independence. Britain takes advantage of Spanish weakness and gains control of Spanish territories in Louisiana and Argentina. Louisiana is split between Virginia and New England while Argentina becomes a new dominion of Great Britain.
Great Britain still abolishes slavery in 1834. However with much larger slaveholdings in this timeline as opposed to our timeline, most plantation owners of Virginia oppose any form of compensated emancipation. What we consider as the American Civil War in our timeline, now happens in the 1830s as the United Kingdom and New England invade Virginia to re-establish order and emancipate the slaves. After the rebellion in Virginia is put down, the Dominion of Virginia is abolished and merged with New England as the Dominion of North America with its capital in Philadelphia.
The Dominion of North America establishes responsible governance by the 1850s with it becoming independent with most affairs a decade earlier than Canada did. However this North America has the advantages of both the United States and Canada as the economy of North America surpasses that of the United Kingdom by the late 1800s. With North America becoming the most powerful aspect of the British Empire, the Statute of Westminster is passed decades earlier with North America, Argentina, South Africa, and Australia gaining complete independence on all aspects aside from foreign affairs and defense.
The United States doesn’t exist. There aren’t 2 nations. There are several
The US federal government became the model for later federal states. Without it, the nations made out of the North American colonies are smaller
The 13 colonies are punished but it is mostly just taking claims to the west of them
The Great Lakes are the most different. Settlers would the Hussein that fought for the British and Quebecois, while the rest of the land stay under the control of various groups of Native Americans
Virginia probably loses West Virginia in the same seizures. Since it would be all land west of the Appalachian mountains. West Virginia included
The territory would have a large group of Anglophone settlers in Kentucky and West Virginia
A large amount of wealth and political power also ends up in the hands of the later Quebecois settlers and a growing Metis
That leads to a diverse landscape of French, English and German speaking settlers. Protestants and Catholics
The Protestants themselves split between Anglicans and Calvinists. Who are then split between German Husseins and Scottish Presbyterians
Then there are the Native Americans. Dominated by the Shawnee
An influx of settlers from Ontario and Quebec in the 1800s makes French the dominant language here as well, contention between Anglophones and Francophone around the Great Lakes sees a population movement for the incorporation of the Indian reserve into Ontario
Conflict with some Native American groups happens afterwards, but the war ends in a British victory
It’s a similar story with the Mississippi territory from Georgia and Tennessee from North Carolina
This territory ends up politically dominated member of the 5 civilised tribes. Who go on to build the largest cotton enterprise on the continent
Florida stays under British control as well. Conflict between the Seminole and the British happens, but the Seminole stay much more represented in Florida compared to the OTL
The Carolinas unify. So do the New England States. New York loses half of upstate New York to an independent Iroquois protectorate. Pennsylvania annexes Delaware, Maryland and New Jersey
The British outlaw Slavery on the same timescale. Banning it in 1836. The most effected are the 5 civilised tribes in Mississippi, but the financial compensation they receive from the British becomes massively important to the development of Mississippi
Louisiana is seized post Napoleonic Wars. The modern state gets the same deal as Quebec and Ontario (Including the Great Lakes)
The rest is opened up to settlers from the UK and becomes several smaller nations
Texas happens and it becomes a British protectorate
The California gold rush Happens under Mexico. Settlers from Mexico, Europe and China flood the region. Leading to a push for independence from Mexico. Aided by the British
Funny I should find this question while I'm having my morning tea.
When one thinks about it, the Kings of Europe by their own actions created the situation by infringements upon the common law of action and conduct of individuals and I don't mean religious ones, those were sort of just an outside ingredient added to the pot.
Unspeakable Tyrannies were centered around them though and where most in power were also subject to following the guidance of the church no matter which denomination or what one called the church since it is the endless war model in action.
N. S
It may have circumstantially have been better with regards to slavery, because that played out about as poorly as possible. The British weren't gonna make the colonies end slavery, but British, and their relationship with France would have prevented the colonies from expanding westward, where the majority of the cotton farming was done, and was much harsher than tobacco plantations in the east.
So you could certainly imagine a scenario where the US south doesn't get established until much later, giving it much less influence at those pivotal times.
Just read the book “1676 the End of American Independence”. That’s what would have happened again, maybe worse and it was terrible. People just literally don’t know history.
One thing that people have honed in on in the comments is the territory. The Louisiana Purchase happened because the French feared that the British would take it from them regardless, along with needing currency. The Russians sold the US Alaska cheap because they feared that the British would take it from them anyway.
We might have eventually gained independence, but American borders would not look like it does today
The colonists would try again within the next 50 years. This would happen even if the British gave them all the representation they had asked for. The colonists had an entire continent with good soil, navigable rivers and raw resources. There was no way they were going to be constrained into the (relatively) small area that the British had negotiated with the natives. You are going from a country where most of the land is owned by a handful of families that have held it for a 700 years to a place where there's free land for the taking.
No natural-born citizen requirement for our head of state/head of government, for one. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all don't have such a requirement, after all. Neither does the UK itself.
Canada joined both WWI and WWII before we did. In alternate history, what is the USA no doubt also gains independence and joins those wars earlier (if they still happen), maybe making some things better. But America probably has lower population (from less immigration) and may not have the southwest (bigger Mexico).
Then even to this day the sun would never have set on the British Empire.
I would think that the USA as we know it wouldn't exist. Rather north and South America would be split between England, France and Spain at first and maybe Russia, Japan and China. By the industrial revolution it may become a second front line for the powers that control it and conflicts would start due to the abundance of resources and land. By the time of the great wars, England would likely have to relinquish direct control over its claims along with other powers, giving its territory Commonwealth status rather than direct territory. Overall we would have a few states in North America under British and possibly Russian, Japanese, and Spanish control or origin today. It is hard to say what would happen though because the erasure of the USA from history alters the last 3 centuries dramatically and so many effects would occur from the outcome of the world wars, to the industrial revolution and even the modern wars in the middle east and conflict with China.
There would have been another war 20 years later if not sooner. UK was in dire straits as far as money and France and Spain was on America's side. France and Spain would have continued their opposition.
The British Empire would never have declined and colonialism would remain across the world for a much longer period, which would mean lots of different groups would be either wiped out or enslaved
Well at a bare minimum all of the founding fathers would be beheaded and in all likelyhood would have been tortured beforehand. America would ecentually gain its independence but it wouldnt be for atleast 50 years probably closer to 100 or more.
Sober conversations on this day impossible from Americans. We been sippin freedom tea all day and are currently setting off explosions. Please ask again tomorrow while we are hungover and have permanent hearing damage.
It would had been like deadly partition of Hindustan.
The revolution, while not a sure thing, would likely occur eventually.
One of the primary issues for the revolution was that settlers couldn’t expand west after the French and Indian war, then the colonials were taxed for the privilege of nothing being gained.
So, either no tax occurs (unlikely, Britain was going broke) or the colonials expand and start another war.
Continue that cycle and Louisiana need not be purchased, it would be conquered.
Honestly independence was a sure thing, the colonies are too big, too resourceful, and the people who would be colonists would be fairly libertarian.
I think if it were delayed a couple decades, Canada would be a part of the U.S.
AMERICA THE DUTIFUL!
Idk, we'd probably just fuckin try it again till it stuck, then turn out more like Canada or Australia with murderous taxes and a parliament instead of a Congress.
Blimey! That would put us right in a pickle ole chap?
Say, care for a pint?
17 missing replies
Would probably be like Canada
Eventually would slowly gain autonomy until eventual independence a century or two later
King Charles would probably be on our currency