# So what real difference did the US Revolution make? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 21, 2009, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276 "2009-01-21T07:14:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/1 "2009-01-21T07:14:02Z")
Had the colonists not rebelled isn’t it likely that the US would still have achieved independence eventually, as Canada did? Slavery would in all likelihood have been abolished sooner and it’s possible that the Civil War could have been averted. (The South would have been unlikely to take on the North AND Britain.) The US could well be more than double its present size, as the whole of North America might have united as an independent nation. So was the American Revolution really worth it? ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/2 "2009-01-21T07:46:59Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Had the colonists not rebelled isn’t it likely that the US would still have achieved independence eventually, as Canada did? Slavery would in all likelihood have been abolished sooner and it’s possible that the Civil War could have been averted. (The South would have been unlikely to take on the North AND Britain.) > > The US could well be more than double its present size, as the whole of North America might have united as an independent nation. > > So was the American Revolution really worth it? Your OP is full of assumptions that need substantiation before we can even begin to address it. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/3 "2009-01-21T17:32:26Z")
The US Revolution was a huge turning point, esp the new form of government and the Constitution. It has been argued that our revolution led to the French Revolution and also the now fairly common prevelance of Representational Democracy. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Gadai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@An\_Gadai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Gadai)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/4 "2009-01-21T17:39:54Z")
Ask me in another century or two. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/5 "2009-01-21T17:42:29Z")
> [@](#): > > Had the colonists not rebelled isn’t it likely that the US would still have achieved independence eventually, as Canada did? Perhaps. Though perhaps Canada gained it’s independence because things like the American Revolution caused a sea change in attitudes in the UK wrt their colonies. It’s hard to say if Britain would have ever have granted independence on such a scale just on it’s own. > [@](#): > > Slavery would in all likelihood have been abolished sooner and it’s possible that the Civil War could have been averted. The British outlawed slavery because they didn’t really have any need for it anymore. However, had they retained control of the colonies they WOULD have needed it (initially), same as the Southerners did. I’m unsure if the Brits would have abolished the slave trade if they really needed it…though I concede that they might have. Of course, if they did they might have run into the same kind of rebellion WE did with the Southern states. That the South would eventually lose doesn’t mean they wouldn’t try and fight anyway. > [@](#): > > The US could well be more than double its present size, as the whole of North America might have united as an independent nation. I’m unsure this is true. Would Britain have taken Florida and the Louisiana territories? Would they have expanded into the western states? Would the other European powers have ALLOWED them to do so? Would they have expanded into territories controlled by the native American’s? I doubt it. I think that had the US stayed a British colony it would have remained a small, seaboard colony under the Brits, not the continent spanning nation it is today. I also think that the other Europeans would have had a lot more to say about the Brits had they tried to expand…and there would have been a lot more wars on our soil I am thinking. > [@](#): > > So was the American Revolution really worth it? Depends on how you define worth. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/6 "2009-01-21T17:45:37Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Had the colonists not rebelled isn’t it likely that the US would still have achieved independence eventually, as Canada did? Remind me: who is the head of state in Canada? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Lurker\_Above](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@The\_Lurker\_Above](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Lurker_Above)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/7 "2009-01-21T17:57:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Remind me: who is the head of state in Canada? That would be the Queen of Canada > **[Monarchy of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_in_Canada)** > > The monarchy of Canada is Canada's form of government embodied by the Canadian sovereign and head of state. It is one of the key components of Canadian sovereignty and sits at the core of Canada's constitutional federal structure and Westminster-style parliamentary democracy. The monarchy is the foundation of the executive (King-in-Council), legislative (King-in-Parliament), and judicial (King-on-the-Bench) branches of both federal and provincial jurisdictions. The current mo Although the sove... ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/8 "2009-01-21T20:24:39Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Slavery would in all likelihood have been abolished sooner and it’s possible that the Civil War could have been averted. (The South would have been unlikely to take on the North AND Britain.) How do I put this… the English were very good at stopping slavery _in England_. They had a somewhat different view of matters elsewhere in their Empire. Arguably even Ireland. ---
**Author:** ![WotNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e19b73/32.png) [@WotNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WotNot)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/9 "2009-01-21T20:34:24Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The US Revolution was a huge turning point, esp the new form of government and the Constitution. It has been argued that our revolution led to the French Revolution and also the now fairly common prevelance of Representational Democracy. If the US Revolution hadn’t happened, the ideals that guided the creation of the United States would still have existed. They would have found expression in one way or another. > [@xtisme](#): > > The British outlawed slavery because they didn’t really have any need for it anymore. However, had they retained control of the colonies they WOULD have needed it (initially), same as the Southerners did. I’m unsure if the Brits would have abolished the slave trade if they really needed it…though I concede that they might have. You’re forgetting that Britain had several other colonies, just as dependent on slavery as the southern states of America, and industries at home that relied on their output. Plus, of course, the slave trade itself was highly lucrative. Britain outlawed slavery because growing moral repugnance for it finally outweighed economic self-interest. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/10 "2009-01-21T20:40:03Z")
[QUOTE=WotNot] You’re forgetting that Britain had several other colonies, just as dependent on slavery as the southern states of America, and industries at home that relied on their output. Plus, of course, the slave trade itself was highly lucrative. Britain outlawed slavery because growing moral repugnance for it finally outweighed economic self-interest. [/QUOTE] I may be wrong, but I don’t think that the any of their other MAJOR colonies were as dependent on slave labor. In the big ones like India they used indigenous labor that wasn’t technically slave. They were easily able to ignore their smaller colonies (like the southern Atlantic islands plantations colonies). You are right that they outlawed slavery because there was a general hue and cry from their public…but this was after slavery wasn’t as vital to their interests. Before that there was a lot of resistance to outright outlawing of slavery in the broader empire and I think that had the US remained a colony that this resistance would have stretched out that timing a few more years or even another decade or so. Eventually slavery would have ended of course…but then again, eventually it would have ended here too, even without the Civil War. -XT ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/11 "2009-01-21T21:32:46Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > …Would [the British] have expanded into territories controlled by the native American’s? I doubt it. I think that had the US stayed a British colony it would have remained a small, seaboard colony under the Brits, not the continent spanning nation it is today… One thing that fueled sentiment for the Revolution was that the British were preventing colonists from expanding (further) into Indian areas due to agreements with said Indians stemming from their assistance in the French & Indian Wars. It’s hard to say if the prevention would have lasted, but I’d think that it would last long enough for other European powers to get a firmer foothold in the interior and west of the continent. It would be an interesting thread to discuss the continental makeup in such an event. I think I’ll [thread=502894]start one[/thread]. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/12 "2009-01-21T21:46:35Z")
[QUOTE=garygnu] One thing that fueled sentiment for the Revolution was that the British were preventing colonists from expanding (further) into Indian areas due to agreements with said Indians stemming from their assistance in the French & Indian Wars. [/QUOTE] Exactly. I seriously doubt the Brits would have allowed the expansion to the south and west that we saw in actual history had we stayed a British colony. Not to mention that Florida (and California and Texas) would have stayed Spanish territory for as long as they could hold it and probably gone to some other European power afterward. Lousiana would have stayed French territory most likely (and that was a huge swath of territory), and Alaska would have most likely stayed Russian. And all of them would have fought and squabbled over it all. Imagine what the Napoleonic Wars would have been like here. We were mostly untouched here in the real universe but I seriously doubt that would have been the case in a non-Revolutionary war America. > [@](#): > > It’s hard to say if the prevention would have lasted, but I’d think that it would last long enough for other European powers to get a firmer foothold in the interior and west of the continent. Yeah, I think so too. Especially the French, but also many of the other European powers. The Russians for instance might have had a larger foothold on the north west than they did in our reality. -XT ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/13 "2009-01-22T03:17:13Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > In the big ones like India they used indigenous labor that wasn’t technically slave. Note that even slavery per se was not legally abolished in India until 1860. Cite: [http://www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/huk-1833act.htm](http://www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/huk-1833act.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/14 "2009-01-22T03:28:02Z")
> [@WotNot](#): > > If the US Revolution hadn’t happened, the ideals that guided the creation of the United States would still have existed. They would have found expression in one way or another. Perhaps, but: a) It’s not guaranteed. b) It could have taken another hundred years until it happened. If you look at the leaps of social tolerance (suffrage, emancipation, enfranchisement), holding these back for a century is a pretty significant event. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/15 "2009-01-22T04:07:30Z")
I’d say it was worth it. The creation of the American Constitution was such a beacon at the time. In today’s climate we tend to take it for granted that the natural progression of governance ends in some form of democracy but that wasn’t true in 1792. One can definitely argue that there were some negatives such as prolonged slavery and the treatment of the American Indians but I think them based on a lot of conjecture. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/16 "2009-01-22T04:09:33Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > a) It’s not guaranteed. Addendum: Instead, communism could have been the thing that was discovered and took over. That would have been just lovely… ---
**Author:** ![mutantmoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a87d85/32.png) [@mutantmoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mutantmoose)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/17 "2009-01-22T04:41:40Z")
> [@](#): > > How do I put this… the English were very good at stopping slavery in England. They had a somewhat different view of matters elsewhere in their Empire. Arguably even Ireland. Not really. There never was much slavery in England itself (if any). Some quotes from early cases on the issue: > [@](#): > > In 1701 in Smith v Gould, Chief Justice Holt (who was the Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench) held that trover did not lie for taking a slave. He observed: “By the common law no man can have a property in another” and he added: “there is no such thing as a slave by the law of England”. > > In 1705 in Smith v Brown and Cooper, Chief Justice Holt stated: “as soon as a negro comes into England, he becomes free; one may be a villein in England, but not a slave”. > > Although popular myth has it that it was Chief Justice Mansfield (the Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench) who, in 1772 in Somerset v Stewart held that a slave who sets foot in England is free, the actual distinction goes to Lord Henley LC, who, in 1762 in Shanley v Harvey (1762) 2 Eden 126, 28 ER 844 (HC Ch) uttered the immortal words: “As soon as a man sets foot on English ground he is free”, and to the earlier decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench in Cartwright’s Case in 1569, which held “that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in”. [http://www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/huk-slavery.htm](http://www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/huk-slavery.htm) Only exception was domestic slaves accompanying their “owners” to the UK. This was a very small amount of people and was only legal for about 10 years from 1824 until slavery was abolished in 1833. When Britain abolished slavery, it went all out to stop it happening in the rest of the world. It set up a huge fleet, the Anti-Slavery Squadron, which for a time was the biggest naval fleet in the world. They patrolled the west coast of Africa stopping ships they thought may contain slaves. When they found a slave ship they returned the occupants to Africa. It was impossible back then to know where the slaves came from exactly so they set up a town where they could live and called it Freetown (capital of Sierra Leone today). If the former slaves wished to strike out back home they were given financial assistance before they left. They freed about half a million people. Also the various Boer Wars were partly (mainly?) about slavery ie the British chasing the Boers down and stopping them from keeping slaves. ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/18 "2009-01-22T04:48:30Z")
The American Revolution didn’t happen because a handful of philosophers had an irrepressible moment; it happened because England overspent to gain victory in the French and Indian War, decided that colonists should pay for that war and for their own ongoing defense, and overtaxed the colonists for a generation to come. The colonists, who came to America explicitly to make money and were now stymied from doing so, were out of polite options by the 1770s. It’s partially happenstance that we became a republic instead of a new kingdom. But separation from England one way or another was inevitable. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/19 "2009-01-22T13:02:59Z")
> [@Krokodil](#): > > The American Revolution didn’t happen because a handful of philosophers had an irrepressible moment; it happened because England overspent to gain victory in the French and Indian War, decided that colonists should pay for that war and for their own ongoing defense, and overtaxed the colonists for a generation to come. The colonists, who came to America explicitly to make money and were now stymied from doing so, were out of polite options by the 1770s. > > It’s partially happenstance that we became a republic instead of a new kingdom. But separation from England one way or another was inevitable. The colonists weren’t exactly falling all over dying of famine. Their pocket book may have been hurting, but I think you’d be hard pressed to find any other group of people who held a revolution at a similar level of hardship without some major political thinking making them feel it was worth the go. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/20 "2009-01-22T17:43:52Z")
> [@mutantmoose](#): > > . It set up a huge fleet, the Anti-Slavery Squadron, which for a time was the biggest naval fleet in the world. They patrolled the west coast of Africa stopping ships they thought may contain slaves. > > They freed about half a million people. > > . Not quite, but close: > **[West Africa Squadron](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron)** > > The West Africa Squadron, also known as the Preventive Squadron, was a squadron of the Royal Navy whose goal was to suppress the Atlantic slave trade by patrolling the coast of West Africa. Formed in 1808 after the British Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act 1807 and based out of Portsmouth, England, it remained an independent command until 1856 and then again from 1866 to 1867. > The impact of the Squadron has been debated, with some arguing it played a significant or even decisive role in t... \*The West Africa Squadron, established in 1808 after the passing of the Slave Trade Act in 1807, was a unit of the Royal Navy that was involved in the suppression of the slave trade in West Africa.[1] The unit was reportedly set up at great expense and patrolled the coast, at its height a sixth of the Royal Navy fleet and Marines were committed to it. … The West Africa Squadron was assisted by forces from the United States Navy, starting in 1820 with the USS Cyane. Initially this consisted of a few ships, but was eventually formalised by the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 into the Africa Squadron[citation needed]. The West Africa Squadron was credited with capturing 1,600 slave ships between 1808 and 1860 and freeing 150,000 Africans who were aboard these ships.[1] The United States Navy captured a further 24 ships\* Note the the USA helped with the slavery trade, even while salvery was legal in the USA. Thus, the British supression of the slave _Trade_ does not prove that GB was 100% anti-slavery in all cases. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276.md?page=2)