This question was actually asked by a girl in my room while I was still in grade school: What would have happened if the British were the ones who won our war for independence? I know back when I was in grade school, I was still somewhat simple and naive. So naturally I assumed the outcome would be catastrophic. But now I am not sure. After all, the British were slowly evolving into a more democratic form of government. Who knows, maybe all we had to do was wait a few decades [ul]
[li]Would the U.S. still eventually be independent. More specifically, would we be independent this same date in history; and…[/li][li]What would the state of democracy in the world be?[/li][/ul]
I know our war for independence was used as an inspiration for the French Revolution (I heard this on tv–so I don’t have a cite, sorry ). Would there indeed be any democracies in the world today if not for our Revolutionary War?
(BTW, the answer the teacher gave was that we probably would still eventually be independent.)
Assuming that the reason for the loss was the loss of the battle of Saratoga (which would have prevented the French alliance that enabled American victory), the result would probably have been a huge indemnity, particularly for Virginia and Massachusetts, and the military occupation of those colonies. Any attempt at a Congress would have been treasonous. A few leaders would likely have been hanged but most pardoned.
Without the success of the American Revolution the French Revolution would probably have been delayed (though all of the elements were already in effect) which means that Napoleon may not have risen so far so fast to keep England in check. Since Napoleon would not have desperately needed money for his wars (or for that matter since he would not have taken over Spain) there would have been no sale of New Orleans & the Louisiana territory. Americans were already beginning to move further west by the time of the revolution, so ultimately they would have come into conflict with the Franco-Spanish in Alabama and points west, which might have led to a world war 1800 style.
Ultimately America would probably have become part of a commonwealth as population, military experience, arms, manufacturing and land mass made it unmanagable by a foreign power. The states would probably have been far looser in their confederation and slavery would still have eventually become a bloody issue.
Marisa Tomei would never have won the Academy Award (which would have been called “Her Majesty’s Movie Trinkets”) and James Dean never would have died in the car accident that claimed his life but survived to have married Jackie Bouvier. John F. Kennedy would have been a priest in frustration and would today at 87 be the only pope to have fathered more children than Rodrigo Borgia.
Nah. The Rooskies would’ve been clobbered by the Nazis and the Chinese would’ve been clobbered by the Japs, if not for the good ol’ U S of A.
I expect the American “colonials” would have eventually sought out a Canadian style solution that allows local responsible government, with only ceremonial ties to Britain. The British would likely have to allow it, because the Americans would have multiplied so rapidly and become sufficiently wealthy that if they were granted proportional representation in the House of Commons, they’d be running the Empire.
Since there’s an actual example of a british colony in north america that didn’t became indepedendant, I assume that you just have to look towards your northern border to know what would have been the most likely outcome. I would suspect Canada and the US would now be the same country.
As for the consequences for the rest of the world, I’ve no clue what could have changed. Concerning the french revolution, I’m not sure it would have changed much. There was strong reasons for a revolution to happen in France, and the concepts suscribed to by the american revolutionnaries and the french republicans were quite widespread since the enlightment era (or else the USA wouldn’t have become a republic, either). Thought the actual existence of a functionning democracy undoubtefully was a source of inspiration for them, the latter would generally quote the french philosophers, not the american founding fathers.
I think that by the end of the XVIIIth century/ beginning of the XIXth century the times were ripe for democracy to be seriously sought after. I could assume that without the american and french precedents, it could possibly have taken a little longer, but eventually, it would have prevailed in Europe. Maybe peacufully. After all, the UK didn’t need a revolution nor a war to become a democracy.
Of course, the whole history of the western world would have been different, but I think the general trend toward democracy would still have prevailed in this alternate universe.
The advent of communism in Russia was too dependant on specific events to assume that it would have happened had the history of the western world be different. And there’s no reason to assume that the same historical events would have happened if a major element (the american independance) had been difeerent. It would have had tons of consequences in the long run that we can’t even begin to guess, IMO.
Besides, there’s no reason to assume it would have been a world without american influence. Except if the emigration to the USA had been much lower (which could have been, I assume, a possible consequence. Then, maybe not), resulting in a much less populated, wealthy and powerful “'north america”.
By the way, in case of failure of the american revolution, it’s very posible that another one would have taken place some times latter. After all, the french revolution failed, and the french went on revolting every other decade or so until they got their republic. If we assume that for some reason the american mindset at the times was ripe for the concept of independance and democracy, then maybe it’s what would have happened. Or maybe the UK, facing such a situation, could have granted more rights more quickly to their north-american colonies than it historically did in the case of Canada.
Doesn’t it rather make you wonder whether communism would have emerged at all?
After all, if there had been no successful American revolution, the French Revolution might not have happened when it did, or unfolded as it did. Clairobscur’s excellent points notwithstanding, I can’t help thinking that the course of the Revolution must have been influenced - particularly when things began to go pear-shaped - by the existence of successful, established, functioning republic. Perhaps, for example, the French would have reverted more decisively to monarchy than, in the event, they did.
And, if the French Revolution is different, everything after that is different. Including communism.
My other point is why you assume that, if the war of independence had not been successful, America would be without influence today. It is entirely possible that America would still be a large nation, rich in resources, and economically powerful. It’s political relationship with the UK might be different, or it might be the same. It took Ireland six or seven attempts to win independence; why assume that the Americans would have stopped after one? But even with some kind of continuing relationship with the UK, it could still have been an enormously influential power in its own right. It’s not absolutely impossible to think that the centre of economic, cultural and even political power for the British Empire might have shifted from London to New York or Philadelphia.
One thing is pretty certain. The Indians would have been displaced by whichever European power/s controlled the great North American land mass. As shameful as that all was, it was inevitible, given the greater technical advancement of European peoples and their lust for land at that time.
Sure. But not necessarily in the way one would expect. One of the major result of the failure of the french revolution and of the napoleonic adventures was the congress of Vienna, an overall agreement between the european powers to stabilize the continent and avoid the repeat of such a situation.
Hence, wirthout the french revolution to open the eyes of the european monarchs, it’s very possible that nationalist movements and revolutions in Europe could have been more widespread, could have hapened earlier, and could have been more successfull during the first part of the XIXth century, rather than the contrary.
My overall take is that specific events in an alternative history really can’t be guessed, but that the general trends still prevail. And that the movement towards democracy and nationalism in the western world was such an essentially unstopable trend.
What’s with the UK kickin folks asses threads lately. We’ve pretty well established the Brits couldn’t even kick Texas’ ass much less the whole US. At the Brits most powerful time in history a bunch of good ol’ boys managed to get the job done. If they hadn’t, it’d been another war in a few years again and again…
If ultimately the revolution had failed. I doubt things would be much different. We still had the industrial revolution and the people would’ve still been hungry for technology. Does anyone actually think there’s that big of a difference between the western nations? Well, maybe with exception to Canada…but they know that Uncle Sam is closeby and will come running if anyone tries fuckin with 'em.
However, we would probably just be getting to the 1950’s.
I wonder how the issue of slavery might’ve changed?
Would Canada have become independent without the US doing so first? I wonder… if there had not been pressure on England to allow Canada independence from the US, I wonder if it ever would have happened…
Let’s see, the emmigration of English Loyalists to Canada and to what would later become Upper Canada would not have happened. The Quebec Act would have been upheld preventing Westward expansion for some time in an attempt to assimilate the French colony. Mind you The French may have been given a reprive for their loyalty during the revolution.
There would eventually be a confederation, however, instead of a United States and Canada I could see two seperate Nations One French one English, And assuming that Louisanna would eventually cede from France possibly a second French state.
Spain would have maintained its power in North America Longer. The West Coast would be Spainish. And so would many Pacific Islands.
I’m thinking the Colonial period world wide would last a little longer. Would there have been any world war wars as we know them or would they be just modern versions of the previous colonial wars?
But it is far too simplistic to assume that enlightenment ideas caused the French Revolution, although they clearly helped turn a political crisis into a revolution once that crisis was under way. Which is why the standard counterfactual is that without the huge government debt, the political crisis might have been avoided and that without French involvement in the Revolutionary War, the government debt might have been sustainable and financial reform more realistic. That does require the British to have defeated the colonists before the French intervened, but that’s the same scenario as Sampiro suggests.
I think you have to go deeper. If England had permitted the colonies representation in Parliament, with Virginia and Pennsylvania on an equal basis with Scotland and Wales etc., then in all likelihood there wouldn’t have been an American Revolution. With that precedent established, Lower and Upper Canada would certainly have had their own MP’s and no particular empire-breaking grievances.
With each of the colonies having effective self-government within an imperial framework, essentially as India was run later, the empire would have lasted at least as long - and perhaps London would have been able to use its unchallengeable military and economic power to make the world something totally different today. So you can blame North and Townshend and the rest of that lot for seeing their American cousins as inferior people to be subjugated rather than as fellow family members.
Also, without the debts Louis XVI ran up in supporting the Americans, he might have been able to avoid the crisis that spiraled into revolution. The Bourbon monarchy would have gotten itself in over its head sooner or later, but as you point out the timing would have made a considerable difference (e.g. Napoleon would probably have been just another artillery officer).
People wre drifting away, into the backwoods & away from the official colonies decades before the Revolution.
I recall reading about an attempt ro start an independent nation from one of these colonies, but it died out.
I suggest that various “outlaw” colonies would have been created in the interior, answering to nobody. Especially in French territory, as the French King had relatively little control over many parts of what were ostensibly his territories.
[ul]
). Would there indeed be any democracies in the world today if not for our Revolutionary War?