# 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:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/21 "2009-01-22T19:33:12Z")
One difference it made was that despite the best efforts of southern planters or New England blue-bloods to create an “upper class”, the United States was (for whites) egalitarian to a degree that the British or pre-revolutionary French could only dream of. The colonists were able to immediately jettison the legacy of a thousand years of feudalism. As late as the end of the 19th century, 40% of British males were not eligible to vote. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/22 "2009-01-23T16:23:59Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > 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) I think you misunderestimate the extraordinary value of the sugar plantation colonies. As an example, after the French and Indian War, Britain almost gave Canada back to the French in exchange for the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, a truly tiny island, but one whose sugar trade was about as valuable as the Canadian fur trade, and which didn’t have pesky Indians. The only reason the Brits didn’t take Guadeloupe was because of pressure from the Jamaican sugar lobby, which didn’t want the competition. The sugar islands were the crown jewels of the European empires of the 18th and early 19th centuries. To Britain, the north american colonies were nice, but the **profits** came from the Caribbean. And the Caribbean islands depended on slave labor. As for India, I’ll need to double check the dates, but IIRC Britain didn’t rule India until well after the British abolition of slavery. Britain had trading outposts, and certainly was becoming involved in internal Indian politics, but at that time it was _buying_ products from India, not _producing_ products in India, so it didn’t care under which labor system the products were produced. Sua ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/23 "2009-01-23T20:12:11Z")
The British did’nt become a major power in India until AFTER the American colonies had been lost. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/24 "2009-01-23T20:23:28Z")
Great Britain wanted to keep its American colonies as a source for raw materials, a dumping ground for its undesirables (a role assumed not long thereafter by Australia), a taxpaying pool, and a market for its finished goods. There’s no reason to suspect those goals would have been dropped after 1775-83, had Britain hung on. The British might well have cracked down harder had the American Revolution fizzled. Independence or dominion status (such as Canada acquired later) might have been delayed for decades, if not indefinitely. The ideals of the Revolution - as embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and George Washington’s noteworthy willingness to give up power - would have been lost, with global consequences we can only imagine today. By succeeding in winning its independence, the United States took its first steps down the road towards eventual domination of the continent and, in many ways, the world. If the U.S. hadn’t risen to power as an independent nation as it did by 1918 or 1941, it might not have been able to intervene as decisively as it did, to Britain’s immense benefit, in either world war. I’d say the Revolution made a _big_ difference. ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/25 "2009-01-23T20:57:59Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 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. It’s worth noting that while slavery was still legal in the US at the time, importation of slaves was illegal since 1808. ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/26 "2009-01-23T21:39:29Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > 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. It was a very slow sea change then, as Canada didn’t get any self-governance powers until 1867, and that was the first colony to do so, I believe. Nor did the American Revolution cause much of a change wrt colonies other than geographic. Britain simply looked to Asia to continue building its empire. ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/27 "2009-01-24T04:49:11Z")
> [@amarone](#): > > It was a very slow sea change then, as Canada didn’t get any self-governance powers until 1867, and that was the first colony to do so, I believe. Canada’s independence process actually happened over a long time. The provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were granted a Legislative Assembly in the 1780s and Lower and Upper Canada in 1791. Following the Rebellions of 1837-1838, Lower and Upper Canada were united into the Province of Canada, and granted responsible government in 1848. (This is the event that I would consider Canada’s accession to “self-government”.) What happened in 1867 was that the provinces of Canada (split again into Quebec and Ontario), New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were united under a federal structure. But of course, the main reason why the colonies were given legislative assemblies during the last years of the 18th century was the American Revolution, and in particular the influx of Loyalists. So without it, it could have taken more time for Canada to reach independence. ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/28 "2009-01-24T05:33:33Z")
> [@SuaSponte](#): > > As for India, I’ll need to double check the dates, but IIRC Britain didn’t rule India until well after the British abolition of slavery. Britain had trading outposts, and certainly was becoming involved in internal Indian politics, but at that time it was _buying_ products from India, not _producing_ products in India, so it didn’t care under which labor system the products were produced. The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 specifically excluded territories of the East India Company, which controlled substantial chunks of India (and other parts of Asia) under the sovereignty of the crown. Britain did not outlaw slavery in India until 1860. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/29 "2009-01-24T17:14:28Z")
> [@SuaSponte](#): > > I think you misunderestimate the extraordinary value of the sugar plantation colonies. As an example, after the French and Indian War, Britain almost gave Canada back to the French in exchange for the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, a truly tiny island, but one whose sugar trade was about as valuable as the Canadian fur trade, and which didn’t have pesky Indians. The only reason the Brits didn’t take Guadeloupe was because of pressure from the Jamaican sugar lobby, which didn’t want the competition. Now doesn’t THAT make an intriguing alternate history: Britain gets another Carribbean possession, the French keep Canada. The English colonies in North America now still face the possibility of invasion or conquest by the French. As a result, they are far more willing to put up with British measures (taxation, troop quartering) because of the increased need for security. The colonists piss and moan a lot, but see little alternative to staying under the British security umbrella. The whole revolution never happens. The only question then is whether the next Anglo-French conflict breaks out before or after the French Revolution (which was probably inevitable in one form or another). ---
**Author:** ![Estilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Estilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Estilicon)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2009, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/30 "2009-01-25T11:53:38Z")
It had a huge impact in Latin America: Once we learned that our American cousins had fired their king we started wondering ¿Why don´t we do the same? It wasn’t the only reason, though. In the case of Argentina the reasons for the May Revolution were: 1.- French and american revolutions. 2.- English Invations (1806-1807): The king was supposed to defend us. It turned out that colonials were pretty good at defending themselves. 3.- Spanish mismanagement: three hundred years of Austrias and Borbones are three hundred years too much. On a side note the inmediate cause for the Argentinian Revolution was the arrival of an american ship that carried the news that the central junta of Sevilla had fallen to Napoleon. Viceroy Baltasar Hidalgo de Cisneros had been appointed but that junta. That’s why our revolution is the strangest one in history: the revolutionaries kicked the viceroy out of office and took power in the name of the king, who was then a prisioner. That was May 1810, until 1816 (our independence), they continued claiming they were true subjects of His Majesty. All because of a tiny ship, english pirates and a couple of revolutions thousands of kilometers away. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/31 "2009-01-27T21:28:47Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > It has been argued that our revolution led to the French Revolution . . . Partly by inspiring it, but mainly because the expense to the French crown of supporting the American Revolution precipitated the fiscal crisis that forced Louis XVI to convene the Estates General in 1789, leading to the Oath of the Tennis Court and all the rest of it. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276/32 "2009-01-27T22:33:56Z")
> [@mutantmoose](#): > > Also the various Boer Wars were partly (mainly?) about slavery ie the British chasing the Boers down and stopping them from keeping slaves. The Boer Wars were primarily about the discovery of diamonds and precious metals in the Boer Republics and Cecil Rhodes and the British Government’s attempt to gain control over all of southern Africa. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-real-difference-did-the-us-revolution-make/482276.md?page=1)