[Comrade Ogilvy]

If Great Britain had won the War of Indepedence, how would the world be different today?

[Captain Hat]

I have wondered that myself, but I seriously doubt that Britain would have ever truly "won" the American Revolution.

I imagine that if the British had "won," they would have a situation much like that in Ireland at the time, an unruly population, subject to revolt and insubbordination. Americans would suffer much as had the Irish and the Scottish after any of their revolts.

However, being that America is not Ireland or Scotland geographically, the frontier would have been a no-man's land. The Brits would be able to hold the coast and the main urban centers (Charleston, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston), but I seriously doubt they would have been able to control much else.

Then there would be the problem of what was left of the Continental Army, and the Congress. What was left of the army would likely go west and fight guerilla style. However, the Congress would have presented its own set of problems to the British. Keep the delegates around, they might become a base from which to rally around and start the war anew. Hang the delegates, and you would create a whole bunch of martyrs for the Americans to rally around and start the war anew.

In summary, had Britain "won," the future for America would have been bloody, and Britain would have gone bankrupt and most likely suffered civil strife at home.

[Boondock Saint]

I wonder though would the native tribes of America been more capable of defending themselves against westward expansion and would Spain have been able to carve a much larger portion of North America for itself?

And what of the French? Would they have been more successful in their own colonization of the southern portions of North America?

We already have French districts in the south due to French colonialization ... do you think Texas would have been *gasp* a French colony?

I would think that the 'USA' as it exists now might not exist at all ... perhaps the orginal 13 colonies, a 'New France' ... a 'New Spain' and maybe ... just maybe a nation that belongs to one or a handful of native tribes.

Certainly I do not believe the English would have pushed westward ... that would have taken far too much in the way of manpower and resources, particularly with Europe being the way it was back then.

[Un Owen]

Captain Hat wrote:

I have wondered that myself, but I seriously doubt that Britain would have ever truly "won" the American Revolution.

They would have won the war, but lost the peace. I think you are correct that the situation would most likely have gone the way of the Irish struggle for civil independence.

Boon wrote:

I wonder though would the native tribes of America been more capable of defending themselves against westward expansion and would Spain have been able to carve a much larger portion of North America for itself?

This is an interesting hypothesis, as the British, at least historically in BNA, had a much more civil relationship with the Native tribes then say the Spanish, French, or the latter American Republic. The British would have most likely remained on their course of cautious negotiations for large tracts of land, rather than the Manifest Destiny approach of sweeping cavalry charges and remote settlements in the hope of laying claim to the region.

The Spanish on the other hand had a dying empire by this point in their history. It is true, they had a formidable Navy and, a somewhat, sizeable land force, but I cannot see them being able to expand their territory. At least, not on any grand scale; most likely their Mexico territory may have gone a little bit northward and Florida could have expanded slightly to the West, but then this would have brought them into contact with the French trading and military outposts in the region.

And what of the French? Would they have been more successful in their own colonization of the southern portions of North America?

I think the Treaty of Paris effectively kept the French from expanding into this region. They cared more for their holdings in the Pacific, namely the Spice producing islands, than the territories in what was by 1776 British North America (BNA). For instance, after the demise of the French military in 1763, the end of the Seven Years' War, the British offered to give back Quebec and the former French holding in India and other regions in exchange for these few Pacific islands.

I think the thought of continued aggression with Great Britain, and the possibility of loosing the islands, possibly would have kept them from exerting expansionist claims in the region.

Certainly I do not believe the English would have pushed westward ... that would have taken far too much in the way of manpower and resources, particularly with Europe being the way it was back then.

I cannot see the British expanding their territory Westward as well. The region of the Ohio Valley had been succeeded to Quebec in 1774 by way of the Quebec Act. It is possible the British would have cancelled this Act after subduing the revolting Colonists, as it was considered an Intolerable Act by the American colonists. But, it is equally possible the British would have told the Colonists to, essentially, shove their criticisms of the Act up their arses. If the Act withstood the test of internal BNA politics in a post-revolutionary war, coloured by a victorious Great Britain, I think the British would have hindered westward expansion as it had been previously promised to the Quebecois and the regional Native tribes that they would stop any further "American" expansion into this region.

I think the victorious American Republic was capable of expanding because they could declare the previous British agreements to be null and void. Also, their geographical location made them, at least to a certain degree, impervious to the petty squabbling of the European powers. If Britain, France, or Spain were to expand their territories in this region, and this pre-supposes a victorious Great Britain in the Revolutionary War, then this would have brought a whole new slew of geo-political tendencies into play. The French and Spain would have views British expansion with trepidation as it could signal further expansionist/Imperialist goals on their remaining territory; and also this applies to the British viewing the expansion of French and Spanish territory with a certain level of trepidation.

The American Republic was able to expand into the western regions because of their ability to apply a singular approach to their expansionist goals. They did not have to worry about an enemy going after an African or Indian port in retribution. Their territory was along the Eastern seaboard, and was capable, at least to some degree, or withstanding an attack along the Atlantic. An attack by the Spanish would require massive troop movement across what is present-day Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and so on; this would have been easily noticed by scouts, as would any attempts at a Naval attack, or blockade, from the Florida Coast. So, in the end, I think the American Republic was in reality the only one capable of strategically exploiting the western regions.

Another way of approaching the subject of what might have been if Great Britain had been victorious is to approach this from a broader global scale.

If the American Revolution had failed, then it is entirely plausible the French Revolution would not have been successful, as much of their ideological support came from the victorious American colonists. This failure in turn would have prevented the ascendance of Napoleon to power in the Counter-revolution. Without Napoleon, the expansion of Liberal-Meritocratic beliefs to the rest of Europe probably would not have come about; this in turn means it is entirely plausible the Bourgeois revolutions of 1840s would not have come about. If they had not happened, then the national Bourgeoisie of the European nations may not have come to power and, as such, the Industrial Revolution would not have taken hold on Great Britain and Germany; as, it was the Bourgeoisie who funded and sought the economic and scientific ingenuity of the period, without power it would have been impossible for them to implement and seek-out these advances. Hence, America may have been the only Industrial power for sometime, at least until some new event happened in Europe too bring their Bourgeoisie into power.

It is an interesting question to ask, one that create many interesting "what ifs."

[Steven_K]

What would the world be like if Germany won WWII? What would the world be like if Sept 11 never happened? What would the world be like if the USSR won the Cold War? Who the fuck cares?

[malachi151]

I have wondered that myself, but I seriously doubt that Britain would have ever truly "won" the American Revolution.

I imagine that if the British had "won," they would have a situation much like that in Ireland at the time, an unruly population, subject to revolt and insubbordination. Americans would suffer much as had the Irish and the Scottish after any of their revolts.

I disagree.

First of all, only 1/3 of the population was in support of the Revolution. Only about 10,000 "Americans" fought in the revolution out of a population of 3 million people.

The Brits would have ended slavery and the slave trade, which would have gained htem the support of the blacks in America at the time, which was already like 15% of the population.

The income from the colonies would have helped the British empire in general, but if the American Revolution would have failed then its doubtful that the Frnech Revolution would have taken place.

[QatzelOk]

Un Owen claimed;

...the British, at least historically in BNA, had a much more civil relationship with the Native tribes then say the Spanish, French...

If this is so, how do you explain the fact that the Spanish and French mixed much more with the natives, creating metis nations like Mexico and Ecuador [and Manitoba's Riel] than the British who remainied pure and unteinted by the natives?

In history here in Qc and the maritimes, we learn that the Acadians and the Riel metis got along famously with the local natives. But the Quebecois at the time were forced to play military games with the natives who were used as a proxy army by the Brits and Americans. No?

Remember, the British were the religious extremists, the Taliban of North America historically.

[Boondock Saint]

creating metis nations like Mexico and Ec

Mexico?

How about nearly 4/5's of the native population up and vanishes due to war and disease? Pump in a ton of colonists and boom ... you have a nice freindly 'mixed' nation.

And the French were the ones who discovered small pox blankies were the best way to dispatch of the natives.

[malachi151]

Regardless, all the Spanish regions of the New World have a much higher native population and higher rate of native mixing than in the USA.

[QatzelOk]

Boon, your history books are different than ours in Quebec.

Smallpox in blankets - American colonists.
Scalping - American colonists.
Genocides - American and Irish [Mewfie] colonists.
Paying homesteaders a buck per dead buffalo?
Homesteaders?
The Trail of Tears?

The French were too busy trying to beat off the English in a major quagmire and trying to fund all their miltiary bases in North America.

And Mexicans are virtually all native mixed with Spanish. So the Spanish were not as racist as the English. They actually had sex with them. What could be more tolerant than intercourse?

[Captain Hat]

First of all, only 1/3 of the population was in support of the Revolution. Only about 10,000 "Americans" fought in the revolution out of a population of 3 million people.

This is a good point, however, you have to take into context how the British were running the war.

In 1776, the British Army conquered most of New Jersey, and offered clemency to all rebels who took an oath pledging loyalty to the King. Many did this, and the British sent detachments to many towns in the colony. Unfortunately, the army quickly wore out its welcome as many troops took to ransacking American homes, loyalist and rebel alike. So by the time Washington attacked Trenton, the British Spy Network in New Jersey was next to non-existent because of crimes committed by British troops.

British troops had the same contempt for Americans as they did for the Irish. The German mercenaries that George III hired had an even lower opinion of the Americans. These factors caused the British to do what they pleased to American Civilians (British Cavalry officers often took over American Churches and turned them into riding rings), and the Hessians were famous for killing surrendering Americans.

So while the British may have had the support of 1/3 of the American population in, say, 1775, by 1777, they had pissed most of that support away.

It is also true to say that only 10,000 men served in the Continental Army, however, it is unknown how many served in the various state militia. On top of that, 3 million Americans were stretched over a very wide area, making it relatively impossible to gather a large army, especially in that day and age.

Smallpox in blankets - American colonists.

No. This was an idea of a British officer.

Scalping - American colonists.

The French military thought up this gem.

[Boondock Saint]

Regardless, all the Spanish regions of the New World have a much higher native population and higher rate of native mixing than in the USA.

We werent talking about the USA though ... I never stated that the USA wasnt the most brutal of entities towards the native tribes, of course the USA would win that title ...

Qatz it is no shock that your history books would be different ... I am sure Japanese history books show the war in the Pacific in a rather nice light also.

The citizens of the US are well aware of the butchering of the native tribes by our nation ... but again this was about the colonial powers as the US would not exist had the English won the war.

Don't change the subject.

You can blame American colonialists (English) for everything if you please ...

However the whole small pox blanket thing? Look up Lord Jeffrey Amherst but tbh small pox would have and already had ravaged the native tribes regardless of a few blankets being handed out or not.

[QatzelOk]

In the 11th century, the Earl of Wessex scalped his enemies. When the English and the Dutch came to the new world they brought the custom with them. This activity was brought not so much as an official method of warfare, but as a bounty to ease the anger of the frontiersmen.

http://ct.essortment.com/historyscalpin_rdrp.htm

But the English took scalping into their own hands when the Indians could no longer be relied upon, and it became an accepted - if unpleasant - reality of Colonial life. By 1723, Massachusetts was paying 100 pounds sterling for the scalps of male Indians aged 12 and over, and half that for women and children. The scalps were then burned or buried.

http://www.hawthorneinsalem.org/Scholar ... D2263.html


I realize it fits in with the anglo-saxon worldview that evil always comes from somewhere or someone else, but it looks like the English gave us this lovely bit of technology long before depleted uranium and scud missiles.

Virtually all French-Canadians are French-Irish-Native, by the way.

[Boondock Saint]

The French used the bounty on scalps to eradicate a peaceful tribe in Newfoundland.

Thats from your first source Qatz ...

Don't be so quick to point the finger at the Anglo-Saxons from your high horse ...

A few Indian tribes had practiced scalping to a very limited extent before the Europeans arrived.

Also from your source ...

So what we can see here is that the French were no less guilty then the English who were no less guilty then the native tribes in relation to scalping but if you sleep better believing the Anglo-Saxons are the only brutes then feel free to go on believing so.

[Sans Salvador]

First of all, only 1/3 of the population was in support of the Revolution

That is a myth. People get the figure because of an alleged letter written by John Adams about the colonists' attitude towards the revolution. However, the letter in question, written years after the American revolution, is clearly about the American colonists' attitude towards the French revolution.

[QatzelOk]

Boon,
Captain Hat said that

The French military thought up this gem.

Which is proven not true by the fact that the British in the colonies were using scalping hundreds of years earlier. They also used the mohawks to attack the French and thus helped spread their brutal warmaking among all the peoples of the St Lawrence valley.

And for the French, scalping was really all about the hair.

[Boondock Saint]

And for the French, scalping was really all about the hair.

Was that for the Vichy brushes to go along with the skin lamp shades?

No, no point. I love you.

[Attila The Nun]

We werent talking about the USA though ... I never stated that the USA wasnt the most brutal of entities towards the native tribes, of course the USA would win that title ...

Is that sarcasm?

The Brits would have ended slavery and the slave trade, which would have gained htem the support of the blacks in America at the time, which was already like 15% of the population.

Highly unlikely. It was a simply matter of convenience that the English did not need the slaves anymore. Had they kept the American colonies slavery would have been better for their needs.

And Mexicans are virtually all native mixed with Spanish. So the Spanish were not as racist as the English. They actually had sex with them. What could be more tolerant than intercourse?

Don't forget enslavement. That's tolerance.

[Boondock Saint]

Is that sarcasm?

No actually ... it wasnt.

Most of the deaths caused by the Spaniards was due to small pox, this was not something the Spaniards could control. I highly doubt the Spanish crown was all that upset about the natives dying out in horrific numbers but really ... even if the Spanish wanted to do something about it there was no way they could. Small pox was not something anyone was able to combat in the 1600's ... or really for several centuries after.

The French and English were brutal no doubt ... but the US literally cleansed the major portion of the North American continent with the intent of ridding it of native tribes. The English did not have the ability to do this nor the desire ... what possible reason would England have to cleanse a continent they had no way to control the whole of? And lets be honest ... the number one resources that North America had at the time was timber ... how far into North America would English have to push to get timber? 40 yards?

The French were much in the same boat as the English ... north America wasnt exactly the best place to grow what was desired by their own crowns and even if fertile lands could be cultivated the infrastructure was ZERO ... neither the French nor the English had the ability to actually develop the North America continent save a few well placed cities and outposts for trading.

But the US ... well the US had a desire to expand (as all nations in that time did) and why build ships and sail across the sea when all you needed to do was send your people westward?

The US also had concerns of European powers on the North American continent ... do we really want a 'New Spain' on our border? Why should so much of North America belong to Spanish colonists? Lets conquer the whole damned thing!

And who stood in our way? The native. Well ... he couldnt fit into our culture ... so he had to be put down.

Its the way we did it ... we went about cleansing the continent, or at least the portions we claimed anyway.

So yes, I was serious when I said the US was the most brutal entity in regards to treatment of native tribes in the Americas. Does that mean I don't hold the Spanish under the title of barbaric? No. Nor do I claim the French or English were kind ...

[CoffeeCake]

I think that the US would go through something as Canada did (Treaty of Confederation 1867, Statue of Westminster 1931) and become a Dominion of the British crown. The success will still be there, but not as much militarily.

How this would effect world events, the French Acadiens and Quebecois would still be the majority in Canada, as no loyalists would be pushed there. Would Britain eventually give back Canada to France to release colonial costs..hmmmm.

No America = No French Revolution (or a real successful one) = No Napoleon = No Nationalism = No WW1 = THE WORLD IS STILL STUCK IN THE 18th century!