I was reading William Inge’s More Thoughts of a Dean, and I came across this quote that poses an interesting question:
“*If George III had had the political sagacity of Queen Victoria, should we have lost America? And, if not, would the political connection between the two countries have been terminated in the twentieth century by a glorious war of independence waged by Great Britain.”
On this July 4, 2002, I thought I might pass his query (put to paper in 1932) on to you.
Somebody somewhere thinks Queen Victoria would have known better than George III how to handle a colony? Gee, she did such a good job with India.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/British/EAco.html
I think the USA would still have achieved independence of some sort by now, if only as a dominion such as Canada or Australia. Independence would have been achieved without a war. However, that presupposes that the two world wars could still have been won without the USA’s help (as opposed to the help of American colonies.)
The USA’s strength is a direct consequence of independence - mass immigration, strong free market work ethos, sheer size.
The colonies would have developed more like Canada and Australia and been dependent on rather than independent of Britain.
It is possible that the allies could have won WWI without the USA, but they would certainly have lost the second and if, by some miracle, they won, we’d have still lost the Cold War.
India is another thread but the British created in India the world’s largest democracy and the concepts of equality before the law and allowing people to keep their property as opposed to being subject to arbitrary theft by what passed for government.
Think of it in terms of an Indian asking “What did the British do for us?” A lot more good than harm.
You’re working on the assumption the monarch was in charge. Not really the case since 1689. And far less the case in the 19th century than the 18th. But both sides of the Atlantic would probably be better off if separation had taken place later. As it is, the UK is becoming a suburb of Brussels and the US is turning into a self-righteous, hubristic “might is right” giant ready for a big fall.
An American diplomat was posted to London and asked the State Department if there were any delicate issues he should avoid in speeches to British audiences. “What about the War of Independence, for instance?” he asked.
“Oh, that’s fine” came the reply. “As long as you remember that the British think they won it.”
If the British had followed the French example, who allowed their colonies representation in the French assembly, things might have been different. I can think of a couple of probable consequences, the US would perhaps be less isolationist at heart, and Canada and the US would in all likelihood be one country.
It is more likely there would have been the 1 French nation of Louisiana and the separate American nations, A Bilingual nation of Quebec as well as the Indian nations to the West.
The large English population in modern Canada was due to the mass exodus of Loyalists fleeing the War of Independence. Canada up to that point was a few Colonies in the East and Quebec. If there was no war of Independence the Quebec act would have been in place halting Westward expansion and forcing a North South growth, in the hopes of assimilating the French population of Canada.
The Indian Nations to the west were protected by this.
California would likely have remained a Spanish colony or part of Mexico.
Louisiana would have remained a French Colony until the Napoleonic Wars would force the British to take it much as they did with Quebec in the 7 years War (French/Indian War)
The separate colonies would have no real impetus to join each other and so would each seek their own independence. Before 1865 the common phrase used describing the USA is The United states are (rather than is) showing the closer identification of the individual states rather than the country as a whole.
By the way Go Alien’s assertion that:
“The colonies would have developed more like Canada and Australia and been dependent on rather than independent of Britain"
Doesn’t quite ring true, (I can only speak for Canada but I have a feeling an Ausie will also take exception to that comment.)
When Canada became a Dominion in 1867 its economy was already closer to the United States than Britain. We also ceased to be dependant on Britain as far as Military aid and many industries already existed so we didn’t really need too many of your goods in exchange for our resources, thank you very much.
The only real dependence was Political. Only because it was written in the BNA act, our Superior court was the Privy Council, based in London. This until we finally dumped it did a fine job of mucking up our Federal system with their decisions in the late 1890s and into the 20th Century.
We have kept many of our ties with Britain (the Commonwealth, keeping the Queen as our Sovereign) but to Claim Canada was Dependant at the time of Confederation is bogus.
kingpengvin,
Point taken. I was thinking in terms of Oz between the wars - dependent on the UK for defence against Japan (hence the Singapore naval base), but politically independent. Ultimately realising that the UK was unable to fight Japan whilst fighting Germany made Oz dependent on the USA for defence. Similarly, Canada was (and still is) dependent on the USA as its major trading and defence partner but politicaly independent. As you say, that’s probably been true for approaching 150 years.
My point was that if the USA were still colonies, their relationship to the UK would have been more like that of Australia, Canada and New Zealand to the UK, up to WWI at least.
I would argue that the growth of the USA changed Canada’s relationship with the UK. Had there been no USA, Canada may still have been close to the colonies, but on a more equal footing. Canada and the colonies would all have been dependent on the UK. However, all is speculation and only applicable up to WWI. As for a present day relationship between the colonies, Canada, Oz, NZ and the UK who knows?
Once again in the Canadian experience since the Boer War we have been sending troops to help Britain in her ventures and not the other way around. Sorry just nit picking…
The point I was making was that the Independence Canada acheived was due to its political and economic maturity to take care of its own matters. Granted another key factor speeding up the creation of teh Dominion was the fear of the large army to the south generated during the US civil War.
I believe had the War of Independence not occured the colonies would have eventually each been granted the same type of independence. Their ties to Britain economically would become less due to the fact that trade amongst the former colonies would prove easier and more benificial than with Britain, Distance being the key factor.
Could they have looked after their own defence? Depends on what potential threat existed. Spain, Mexico, French Louisina? Hard to say.
As you mention it is all speculation.
Though you would have had more North American Troops in Europe Earlier during the second world war. So long as the Independence was achieved amicably.
Another thing to remember is that the US would likely look nothing like it does today. Would the Louisiana Territories still be in French hands? Or maybe the Prussians would have taken them after the Napoleanic wars. What about Canada? Is that a seperate entity if the US colonies don’t rebel when they do? What about the Northern Mexican territories? Does the Mexican-American War still happen? How about the Spanish-American War?
I’m not sure how much the US would have been able to help during the World Wars aside from man-power. Less immigration would have been a likely consequence of dependence. The OP’s question of whether the UK would have had to wage a war of independence from a gigantic American power is no, since the US probably wouldn’t BE a power without independence.
A few speculations on the issue.
The colonies would not have been unified for quite some time if at all. It was an anti-English movement that brought the thirteen colonies together and resulting nationhood that kept them together. In both cases, it was a near thing. Absent this, colonies like New York and Virginia would have been no more politically united than Australia and New Zealand. Canada was united by British legislation, because of rivalry with the United States. So without an American Revolution, you’d probably have had twenty or so British dominions in North America throughout most of the nineteenth century at least, none of which would rival the mother country in power.
The Western expansion into North America would have gone much slower. The French wouldn’t have sold Louisiana to the British. The British might have gained it after the Napoleonic Wars but it’s equally plausible that France might have kept it or it could have been returned to Spain. Even assuming British control, the pace of subsequent development would have been slower. And beyond Louisiana was Mexico, which might have done much better. If Mexico had avoided its disastorous wars of the 1830’s and 40’s it could have benefited from the economic bounty of Texas, California, and the Southwest and grown into a regional power in the 1850’s and 60’s.
England supported the American Monroe doctrine which kept other European powers out of Central and South America and there’s no reason to assume it would have done otherwise if it had kept more of North America. If anything, you might have seen a more open British presense in Spanish America. But more likely would be Britain doing what the US did and controlling the region through nominally independent nations.
Going further out on the speculative limb, I’d theorize that you’d have a much more conservative political system throughout Britain and the rest of the world. Many people have seen the ongoing success of the United States as an inspiration for increased democracy and individual liberty. Without this example of what’s possible, conservative elements would have had an easier time dismissing political reforms as unworkable utopianism.
Another consideration is what Britain wouldn’t have done if it had stayed more involved in America. Perhaps with existing commitments in America, Britain might have had decreased interest in Africa. France could have become the dominant power in that continent.