8 ms·

1066? Lucky for us that Britain and France didn't get along or the US War of Independence would not have succeeded.

seisvelas 7y ago
Sincere question here - was it really that lucky? Other colonies that didn't separate seem to have a similar (occasionally even higher) standard of living than the US. Were a lot of really good things caused by the independence of the US? Just off hand, it seems like slavery likely would have ended much sooner and the rise of fascism in Europe could have been greatly abated with a non-independent US. Of course, it's impossible to know what would have been, but it makes me wonder.
- Merrill 7y ago
  The US would not have developed as fast if it had continued to be a British colony. A major cause of the War of Independence was that when Britain took control of the Ohio after the French and Indian War, the crown claimed the right to all negotiations with the Indian tribes and prevented the colonists from buying and/or seizing Indian land in the Ohio River Valley. Recall that Washington had been to the headwaters of the Ohio. He and others were well aware of the rich lands west of the Appalachian chain. Also, many of the financiers of the war were also land speculators before and after the war. The officers of the war formed the Society of the Cincinnati, and many of them were granted land west of the Appalachians. The net result was the rapid expansion westward from 1790 through the 1800s. This expansion and development of the lands, forests and mines was aided by rapid immigration from many countries in Europe, not just the British Isles. As a British Colony, the US would not have been as available to other Europeans, and development would have been slower. Possibly slavery would have ended more quickly, but Britain also supported the South, rather than the North. The South's cotton fed the British textile factories. After the Civil War, Britain went on to develop cotton plantations in Egypt as a replacement source.
  - carty76ers 7y ago
    > As a British Colony, the US would not have been as available to other Europeans, and development would have been slower. Do you have a source for this? My understanding is that in 1775, the British colonies of America were the fastest growing and most populous of the British empire. So if the war happened, why would this not continue to be the case?
    - simonh 7y ago
      They would have continued to grow rapidly, but almost certainly not as rapidly as they actually did. Also it's unlikely they would have expanded their territory as quickly for the reasons already given. The desire for territorial expansion was a major driver for independence. It's also hard to imagine the Louisiana Purchase occurring under the British crown.
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    Seems to indicate the native Indians would have had suffered much less? Maybe it would be less developed, but I am getting the impression the US history would have less suffering?
    - philwelch 7y ago
      They just would have been colonized by the French or Spanish instead. Smallpox and other infectious diseases would have still been as vicious and deadly. At best some of the more warlike tribes such as the Comanche would have been able to hold effective control of the Great Plains.
- sbmthakur 7y ago
  Have a look at British rule in India. You will understand the full horrors of colonialism.
  - Merrill 7y ago
    One of the reasons the British decided to cut their losses in America was that they had more important opportunities in India, where they were consolidating power after their victory over the French at Plassey.
  - seisvelas 7y ago
    I think the difference is that the Indians were subjected to colonization, whereas the American rebels were themselves the colonists. It would be more similar to a rebellion of the British governors/Raj in India against the Crown, which very plausibly would have led to even worse and more prolonged abuse of the native people in India.
- philwelch 7y ago
  Britain was only as eager to renounce slavery because they had no colonies that profited from it after American independence. Also, the rise of fascism in Europe was abated pretty effectively with an independent US anyway.
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    > "was abated pretty effectively" Ah yes, all of Europe occupied by fascists and a war with 60 million dead, nothing to worry about. Do you also consider the black plague "a minor public health issue, promptly addressed?"
    - philwelch 7y ago
      What makes you think it would have gone any better if American independence never happened? First off, British America would have never had the same amount of territory that the US ultimately had; Napoleon would have never sold the Louisiana territory to Great Britain, the Southwest would still be part of Mexico, and at best the Pacific Northwest would have been part of Canada. British America would basically stop at the Appalachians, with Louisiana probably reverting back to the Spanish and becoming either part of a greater Mexico or existing as its own quasi-post-colonial dominion. So while America could be the breadbasket of the Allies in our timeline, that would have been impossible without American independence. Secondly, Britain would have never allowed America to industrialize to the degree that we did, because they wouldn't want that kind of competition for their domestic industry. So not only are we no longer the breadbasket of democracy, but we're not even the arsenal of democracy anymore. Thirdly, you're looking at a scenario where in the First World War, Americans would be drafted and shipped overseas to die pointlessly in the trenches or in failed offensives like Gallipoli. And you think this would make Americans more likely to accept future British demands to be drafted and sent overseas to die in another pointless European war? Since in this scenario British America never even reaches the West Coast, there's absolutely no chance of a Pearl Harbor, either, meaning Americans have absolutely no stake in the Second World War. In other words, British America would be a much weaker country than the United States, with less land, fewer natural resources, less industrialization, less manpower, and much less will to fight. They would have been available two years earlier, but Britain and France just sort of sat around doing fuck-all between September 1939 and May 1940 anyway, and it's not clear that the addition of a small number of Americans to the BEF would have saved France. And it's even worse than that. Without the United States the Pacific theatre would collapse, with Japan likely holding uncontested access to the natural resources of the region and probably even capable of successfully invading Australia. In real life, Britain basically gave up on everything east of Burma. It was the United States who had the resources to engage the Japanese at Guadalcanal, effectively checking their advance and making their position in New Guinea untenable. In such a scenario, Japan would likely be able to more effectively project naval power into the Indian Ocean and concentrate their forces on the China-Burma-India theatre. Finally, compared to the rise of communism in Europe, fascism was abated pretty decisively, with probably fewer overall deaths and in a much shorter period of time.
ekianjo 7y ago
There would have been other allies most probably if it were not for France.
- walshemj 7y ago
  Well you would have had to have a similar revolution to the French revolution and not sure if any other countries are good candidates. More to the point if George III had wanted to recover the lost colonies as much as he was anti catholic - the war of 1812 might well gone very differently.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    The French Revolution post dates the American one and without French support the American Revolution would have failed. The French monarchy spent so much money supporting the Americans it basically bankrupted them and without naval support the Royal Navy would have had a much easier time moving troops. > The expanded French fleet, in combination with the Spanish, outnumbered the British one and was able to temporarily gain sufficient command of the Atlantic to prevent Lord Cornwallis and a large British army, besieged by George Washington and 5,800 French regulars at Yorktown on the Chesapeake Bay in 1781, from being evacuated or reinforced by sea, forcing Cornwallis to surrender. This was the decisive battle of the war that ended with the Peace of Paris in 1783. Washington himself handsomely acknowledged the significance of the French contribution in a letter to Admiral De Grasse in which he said, “You will have observed that whatever efforts are made by the land armies, the navy must have the casting vote in the present contest” (Lloyd 1965, p. 174). The Canadian historian W. J. Eccles (1987, p. 153) is even more explicit: “French initiative, French tactics, French ships, French guns and men achieved that unexpected and decisive victory. The Americans could not have done it on their own.” ... > The war also had very severe consequences for France’s much more disorderly fiscal system, where the finance minister Calonne and his predecessor Necker together borrowed over 900 million livres in the decade from 1777 to 1787 (Doyle 1988, pp. 43– 52). The situation was so bad that Calonne informed Louis XVI that no fiscal remedies could be found without a complete overhaul of the society and administrative system of the ancien régime, leading to the summoning of the Estates-General in 1789 and the outbreak of the French Revolution. Power and Plenty, Ronald Findlay and Kevin H. O’Rourke

Sincere question here - was it really that lucky? Other colonies that didn't separate seem to have a similar (occasionally even higher) standard of living than the US. Were a lot of really good things caused by the independence of the US? Just off hand, it seems like slavery likely would have ended much sooner and the rise of fascism in Europe could have been greatly abated with a non-independent US. Of course, it's impossible to know what would have been, but it makes me wonder.

Merrill 7y ago
The US would not have developed as fast if it had continued to be a British colony. A major cause of the War of Independence was that when Britain took control of the Ohio after the French and Indian War, the crown claimed the right to all negotiations with the Indian tribes and prevented the colonists from buying and/or seizing Indian land in the Ohio River Valley. Recall that Washington had been to the headwaters of the Ohio. He and others were well aware of the rich lands west of the Appalachian chain. Also, many of the financiers of the war were also land speculators before and after the war. The officers of the war formed the Society of the Cincinnati, and many of them were granted land west of the Appalachians. The net result was the rapid expansion westward from 1790 through the 1800s. This expansion and development of the lands, forests and mines was aided by rapid immigration from many countries in Europe, not just the British Isles. As a British Colony, the US would not have been as available to other Europeans, and development would have been slower. Possibly slavery would have ended more quickly, but Britain also supported the South, rather than the North. The South's cotton fed the British textile factories. After the Civil War, Britain went on to develop cotton plantations in Egypt as a replacement source.
- carty76ers 7y ago
  > As a British Colony, the US would not have been as available to other Europeans, and development would have been slower. Do you have a source for this? My understanding is that in 1775, the British colonies of America were the fastest growing and most populous of the British empire. So if the war happened, why would this not continue to be the case?
  - simonh 7y ago
    They would have continued to grow rapidly, but almost certainly not as rapidly as they actually did. Also it's unlikely they would have expanded their territory as quickly for the reasons already given. The desire for territorial expansion was a major driver for independence. It's also hard to imagine the Louisiana Purchase occurring under the British crown.
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  Seems to indicate the native Indians would have had suffered much less? Maybe it would be less developed, but I am getting the impression the US history would have less suffering?
  - philwelch 7y ago
    They just would have been colonized by the French or Spanish instead. Smallpox and other infectious diseases would have still been as vicious and deadly. At best some of the more warlike tribes such as the Comanche would have been able to hold effective control of the Great Plains.
sbmthakur 7y ago
Have a look at British rule in India. You will understand the full horrors of colonialism.
- Merrill 7y ago
  One of the reasons the British decided to cut their losses in America was that they had more important opportunities in India, where they were consolidating power after their victory over the French at Plassey.
- seisvelas 7y ago
  I think the difference is that the Indians were subjected to colonization, whereas the American rebels were themselves the colonists. It would be more similar to a rebellion of the British governors/Raj in India against the Crown, which very plausibly would have led to even worse and more prolonged abuse of the native people in India.
philwelch 7y ago
Britain was only as eager to renounce slavery because they had no colonies that profited from it after American independence. Also, the rise of fascism in Europe was abated pretty effectively with an independent US anyway.
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  > "was abated pretty effectively" Ah yes, all of Europe occupied by fascists and a war with 60 million dead, nothing to worry about. Do you also consider the black plague "a minor public health issue, promptly addressed?"
  - philwelch 7y ago
    What makes you think it would have gone any better if American independence never happened? First off, British America would have never had the same amount of territory that the US ultimately had; Napoleon would have never sold the Louisiana territory to Great Britain, the Southwest would still be part of Mexico, and at best the Pacific Northwest would have been part of Canada. British America would basically stop at the Appalachians, with Louisiana probably reverting back to the Spanish and becoming either part of a greater Mexico or existing as its own quasi-post-colonial dominion. So while America could be the breadbasket of the Allies in our timeline, that would have been impossible without American independence. Secondly, Britain would have never allowed America to industrialize to the degree that we did, because they wouldn't want that kind of competition for their domestic industry. So not only are we no longer the breadbasket of democracy, but we're not even the arsenal of democracy anymore. Thirdly, you're looking at a scenario where in the First World War, Americans would be drafted and shipped overseas to die pointlessly in the trenches or in failed offensives like Gallipoli. And you think this would make Americans more likely to accept future British demands to be drafted and sent overseas to die in another pointless European war? Since in this scenario British America never even reaches the West Coast, there's absolutely no chance of a Pearl Harbor, either, meaning Americans have absolutely no stake in the Second World War. In other words, British America would be a much weaker country than the United States, with less land, fewer natural resources, less industrialization, less manpower, and much less will to fight. They would have been available two years earlier, but Britain and France just sort of sat around doing fuck-all between September 1939 and May 1940 anyway, and it's not clear that the addition of a small number of Americans to the BEF would have saved France. And it's even worse than that. Without the United States the Pacific theatre would collapse, with Japan likely holding uncontested access to the natural resources of the region and probably even capable of successfully invading Australia. In real life, Britain basically gave up on everything east of Burma. It was the United States who had the resources to engage the Japanese at Guadalcanal, effectively checking their advance and making their position in New Guinea untenable. In such a scenario, Japan would likely be able to more effectively project naval power into the Indian Ocean and concentrate their forces on the China-Burma-India theatre. Finally, compared to the rise of communism in Europe, fascism was abated pretty decisively, with probably fewer overall deaths and in a much shorter period of time.

ekianjo 7y ago

There would have been other allies most probably if it were not for France.

walshemj 7y ago
Well you would have had to have a similar revolution to the French revolution and not sure if any other countries are good candidates. More to the point if George III had wanted to recover the lost colonies as much as he was anti catholic - the war of 1812 might well gone very differently.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  The French Revolution post dates the American one and without French support the American Revolution would have failed. The French monarchy spent so much money supporting the Americans it basically bankrupted them and without naval support the Royal Navy would have had a much easier time moving troops. > The expanded French fleet, in combination with the Spanish, outnumbered the British one and was able to temporarily gain sufficient command of the Atlantic to prevent Lord Cornwallis and a large British army, besieged by George Washington and 5,800 French regulars at Yorktown on the Chesapeake Bay in 1781, from being evacuated or reinforced by sea, forcing Cornwallis to surrender. This was the decisive battle of the war that ended with the Peace of Paris in 1783. Washington himself handsomely acknowledged the significance of the French contribution in a letter to Admiral De Grasse in which he said, “You will have observed that whatever efforts are made by the land armies, the navy must have the casting vote in the present contest” (Lloyd 1965, p. 174). The Canadian historian W. J. Eccles (1987, p. 153) is even more explicit: “French initiative, French tactics, French ships, French guns and men achieved that unexpected and decisive victory. The Americans could not have done it on their own.” ... > The war also had very severe consequences for France’s much more disorderly fiscal system, where the finance minister Calonne and his predecessor Necker together borrowed over 900 million livres in the decade from 1777 to 1787 (Doyle 1988, pp. 43– 52). The situation was so bad that Calonne informed Louis XVI that no fiscal remedies could be found without a complete overhaul of the society and administrative system of the ancien régime, leading to the summoning of the Estates-General in 1789 and the outbreak of the French Revolution. Power and Plenty, Ronald Findlay and Kevin H. O’Rourke