Should America have declared independence in hindsight?

[Dangine]

I will say the OP makes a fair case that the issue of slavery and racism wouldn't be as bad if we didn't declare independence. Never thought about that before. I would also add that Native Americans may also have been treated better under British rule, although still very shitty.
However, the United States was correct to declare independence, their reasons were valid.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

My takeaway from this is you think that the British should never have 'given' Hong Kong to the Chinese. I wholly agree.

The part about Holy British Empires and tea-sipping, gun-banning Americans has its appeal, but still nonsense.

Britannian, not British. We should have an anime about it.

Wait...

[Shrillland]

At first glance, it seems obvious that staying part of Britain might seem better from some perspectives, more controls over new settlements, British ideals about society allowing us to have a proper welfare state like Canada, less conflict with the First Nations, and so on. Ultimately, however, the only way that could succeed would be if the revolution ended in defeat but the ideas spread anyway. That's perfectly possible, but the window of opportunity for such a scenario is so absurdly short that it was never likely.

Also, GHK, keep in mind that the American Colonies would still be malcontent after such a defeat. I once did an alt-history RP called A World Without America, where the ideas survived even though the country was never born. What ended up happening was that the US was effectively resurrected in a somewhat more racist form in the mid 1830s after the abolition of slavery empire-wide. One way or another, America would have gotten independence, and if the experiment failed in 1776, the revived 1834 model, combined in timing with the Canadian uprisings, would've seen a disastrous series of conflicts, first against Britain to fight for freedom, and then against each other to define what freedom actually was.

Ultimately, the US would've won thanks to greater numbers and many of the problems we face today would've actually been amplified, such as systemic racism and opposition to expanded government in any shape as freedom to own other people would be far more explicit, similar in a way to the Confederates in our timeline, leading to an even more radicalised dichotomous nation than that which we have now.

History is like playing slot machines in that it ultimately boils down to timing and luck. Given what we know about the world and about what was likely to happen otherwise, I would say yes. The US, for all the flaws that came as a result of it, and for all the irritations that our national identity bring to ourselves and the world, should have declared independence because it was the best time to do so. Will the nation that was made survive for much longer? I am pessimistic, but I also think that the US was, at least, the right idea even if it was so full of exceptions and hypocrisies.

[Old Tyrannia]

I don't see where I said the British Empire was the "epitome of Christendom." The New Testament commands Christians living in the Roman Empire at the time it was written to submit to the authority of the Roman emperors; unless you believe that ancient Rome was more "Christian" than 18th century Britain I don't see why British subjects would be any less bound to obey the legitimate authority of the Crown.

The Crown's authority isn't legitimate. It's just a woman with a fancy title and a lucky birth.

Fortunately for Her Majesty you don't get to arbitrarily declare the the basis of British law illegitimate.

No. Rebellion against a legitimate monarch is always a sin. The United States is a monument to man's hubristic rejection of God.

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

Not according to a Christian worldview.

What makes your monarch legitimate?

The legitimacy of the British monarchy stems from the ancient traditions and laws of the United Kingdom and its predecessor states, stretching back to time immemorial.

The New Testament commands Christians living in the Roman Empire at the time it was written to submit to the authority of the Roman emperors

Why do you actually believe this?

As a Christian I naturally accept the teachings of the Bible and the traditions of the church as authoritative in matters of ethics.

[Behaved]

Alt-history hypothetical exercise. Knowing what we know now, do you think America should've declared and fought a unilateral War of Independence against Great Britain in 1776? Do you think such a revolution, had it occurred, should've been snuffed out by Great Britain? Why or why not? Would America and the world be a better or worse place if the American Revolution had never occurred or had been crushed?

Knowing what we know in 2021, I'm increasingly of the opinion that America should never have declared independence in the first place. Or if it did declare independence, the Redcoats should've decisively crushed the rebellion. I think America, and to a lesser extent, the rest of the world, would've been better off as a result.

At the time of the Revolution, parliamentary democracy in Great Britain was still in its infancy and, although Britain had already had its share of early prime ministers, the King continued to wield a considerable, albeit waning, degree of personal power and influence. It would never have occurred to the American Founding Fathers that a prime minister, rather than an all-powerful king or president, could've been the one to lead their country to greatness, and the legislature could've played a central role in propping up future governments, hence the growing constitutional pains and political polarization America faces today. It would never have occurred to the Founding Fathers that Britain would eventually evolve to become just as liberal and democratic as the United States today and that had a parliamentary system been retained, America would've turned out the same way.

Today, things have gotten so polarized that it would take another revolution or civil war just to amend the Constitution, and America has already had one civil war. As time has gone by, America's aging and inflexible legal and political system has slowly begun to buckle under its own weight. By contrast, British politics remains far less polarizing and volatile than French or U.S. politics, France having experienced its own revolutions and counter-revolutions beginning in 1789, that one being of a more socialist or communist rather than liberal character. Britain's legal and political evolution has been far smoother and British democracy continues to go from strength to strength. It appears that gradual reform and evolution are preferable to sudden, violent revolution.

The American colonies, like the states and provinces of present-day Canada or Australia, would've gradually consolidated into a de facto independent Commonwealth Dominion of the British Empire. Rather than a sudden, short, sharp revolution and the accompanying violence and upheaval, America's political evolution would've closely mirrored that of Great Britain itself as well as Canada and Australia with gradualism, reform, and convention being the norm.

It is likely that both the slave trade as well as slavery itself would've been abolished much sooner by the British colonial administrators long before the colonies were granted Home Rule or self-governance. It is also possible that a Civil War might never have occurred. As a result, while racism would continue to persist to this day, racial tensions would be nowhere as bad as they are in our timeline and it is possible that most African-Americans alive today might be descended from voluntary immigrants rather than slaves. It is also likely that blacks would make up a far smaller percentage of the population than they do now. America would certainly be a far less racist country. It would be about as racist as Australia is today. However, Native Americans wouldn't be a whole lot better off than they would be in our timeline.

As an unintended side effect, the cultural situation might be very different for black Americans. There would be no African American Vernacular English ethnolect or southern-based accent. We know this because black Canadians don't generally speak AAVE and there is no "south" in Canada. Jazz, hip hop, blues, and other varieties of music historically associated with African-Americans might not even exist today. Perhaps something more closely resembling Brazilian samba might take its place.

America would still emerge to become a fully-independent, economically, militarily, and culturally dominant superpower, albeit with somewhat closer historical ties to Westminster with a legal and political system that closely resembles the British model.

Britain's parliamentary style of governance would've been retained by the colonies that would eventually constitute a future Commonwealth of America. As with the United Kingdom, political liberalization would've occurred in stages over the course of the 19th century eventually culminating in the development of a full-fledged, Westminster-style parliamentary democracy with a Governor-General as a symbolic, and mostly powerless, head of state, and a Prime Minister of America as the country's paramount leader by the early 20th century, in line with most emerging democracies at the time.

According to Wikipedia, almost every Third World democracy with a U.S.-style presidential system has devolved into a full-blown, one-man dictatorship. By contrast, two-thirds of Third World democracies with a Westminster-style system remain democracies, albeit deeply flawed, to this day. I'm grateful that Malaysia was a British rather than an American colony, else we might've ended up with a complete, authoritarian demagogue similar to Rodrigo Duterte, Suharto, or Ferdinand Marcos instead of the kind of useless, half-assed leadership we have right now.

The Philippines, Indonesia, and many African and Latin American former colonies modeled their democracies on the United States, paving the way for decades of failed attempts at democratic governance, violence and instability, and a cycle of coups and counter-coups. Even in the absence of external interference by the CIA, Venezuela has still managed to devolve into a full-fledged, anti-American dictatorship. Things might've been a little more stable had the British interfered instead. There could've been a Disraeli doctrine instead of a Monroe doctrine and everyone would've been somewhat better off because of it.

In a failed or non-Revolution scenario, American democracy would be even more stable and resilient than it already is if it was more closely modeled on the British system. After all, America, like every other country in the world by today's standards, was a "Third World shithole" until c. the 1950s. A parliamentary democracy is preferable to a presidential democracy, and the American Revolution, and the accompanying lack of foresight that the Founding Fathers couldn't possibly have possessed in the absence of what we now know, only served to undermine that trend in retrospect. The American Revolution may have bequeathed the United States with an extremely robust set of democratic institutions and norms in the short-to-medium term, but it may ultimately become a victim of its own success in the longer term, having sown the seeds for its possible demise from the very outset.

Further details regarding the style of governance a Commonwealth of America would assume and why a parliamentary democracy is preferable to a presidential democracy are contained in the annex spoilered below.

Instead of a written constitution requiring a two-thirds majority to amend, America's entire legal basis would be based upon centuries of established convention and precedent known as common law. Separation of church and state, due process, the rule of law, one-man-one-vote, and all the rights and liberties that Britain enjoys today were gradually accrued over centuries all in the complete absence of an actual, written constitution. I am increasingly convinced that a written constitution requiring a two-thirds majority to amend is actually a serious impediment to America's future political and societal progress rather than a guarantor of it. A pre-industrial-era, centuries-old document simply wasn't intended to serve the needs of a post-industrial populace. However, I remain open to the idea of Americans promulgating a brand-new, written constitution to supplant the old one in order to meet the needs of the 21st century.

Instead of an all-powerful king-like president who is vested with an exorbitant amount of executive authority and personal power, fame, and glory, and who is extremely difficult to remove from office bar a long-drawn-out impeachment process and conviction by two-thirds of the upper house, a prime minister would be selected from among his peers in the lower house and his/her ministers must also all be members of the lower house, or on rare occasions, the upper house. By convention, the leader of the largest party would have first dibs in attempting to form a government with majority support.

Should the prime minister lose his/her majority and become unable to pass laws, opposition members of the lower house can introduce and easily pass a motion of no-confidence, removing him/her from office and triggering the dissolution of parliament by the Governor-General and a snap general election, which must occur within 60 days, greatly curtailing the length and sheer expense of a four-year-long (re-)election campaign. A prime minister would have far less time to rile up his supporters into storming a government building in the event that he/she loses re-election.

Failing to pass the Queen's, or in this case, the Governor-General's speech or the annual budget would also be tantamount to a vote-of-no-confidence resulting in the collapse of a government and early elections. No drawn-out impeachment trial or two-thirds majority are required to remove the PM from office. Filibusters and supermajority requirements wouldn't even exist. It's really that easy and straightforward.

Additionally, the prime minister must also command the broad support of members of his/her own party or risk being deposed in an internal leadership election and succeeded by a party rival in lieu of a general election. There would be no expensive and drawn-out party primaries. One would have to be a fee-paying member of a political party in order to vote for a leadership candidate.

The executive branch would be entirely beholden to the every whim and fancy of members of the lower house. It is so much easier to remove a prime minister from office than it is to remove a president from office, and it is considerably more difficult, though not impossible, for a prime minister to attempt to accrue so much personal power and become a dictator. I can guarantee that Boris Johnson would have a much harder time attempting to cling on to power than Donald Trump did despite the fact that the vast majority of British voters don't actually elect their Prime Minister directly.

As the governor-general is merely a ceremonial, non-partisan office-holder with little in the way of actual political power, it wouldn't really matter whether the GG is directly or indirectly elected or appointed. The whole debate over whether the Electoral College should be abolished would be moot as such a body would never have been set up in the first place.

A parliamentary system would also be fully amenable to a proportional arrangement whereby parties are allotted a certain number of seats based on the percentage of votes that party receives either nationwide or within a multi-member constituency, or a mixture of both. In a proportional system, no single party would be able to capture the support of a majority of the electorate and therefore a simple majority in the lower house. There would be no true "winners" and "losers" as even the losing side would still have a say, and failing that, moderate centrist parties in the middle would serve to temper the right-leaning or left-leaning passions of more radical and populist parties. The result, as in Germany, would be government by consensus rather than a tyranny of the majority.

If the upper house is also elected, then the precise manner of electing a Senator or peer would be up for debate. The very existence of either an elected or unelected upper house would also be up for debate given America's federal character. However, I suspect it would be somewhat less polarizing than a debate over the existence of an electoral college or whether Washington D.C. should be granted statehood, the latter of which would determine which president gets elected or which party controls the Senate for the next two or four years.

In a presidential system, the president, being a single-office holder, cannot be elected by proportional representation because there can only be one president at a time. The losing candidate and his supporters would be completely locked out of power for four whole years, causing anger and resentment to build and exacerbating political polarization. One need only look back over the past couple of months to know what I'm talking about.

Instead of fixed terms and the high stakes that come with them, snap general elections can be called or triggered either by the Prime Minister or the Opposition (House votes permitting) at any point within a four- or five-year period, greatly lowering the stakes for voters. The focus would shift to voting for parties based on their policy platforms, election manifestos, and perceived competence, rather than voting for whoever the most charismatic leader happens to be. This would go a long way toward checking the rise and/or personal ambitions of populist leaders and mitigating the harmful and divisive effects of political polarization. It would be less circus and more substance.

Rather than resort to quick-fix executive orders that can easily be reversed by a Prime Minister from a rival party, the Prime Minister, who, by established convention, must command majority support in the House of Commons/Representatives, can simply introduce and pass a series of bills on the floor of the House.

If, like the British House of Lords, the upper house is unelected and/or hereditary, it is likely that its powers will have been severely curtailed over time, reducing it to merely a point of formality. In this case, laws may be passed swiftly without a hitch if a single party commands a majority in the lower house. The lower house would be where all the cheering, jeering, and drama happens. It would be far more interesting than the stultifying torpor of U.S. House and Senate proceedings in our timeline.

In addition, the Speaker of the House would be strictly neutral and non-partisan, and the same would go for the Lords/Senate Speaker. Impartial speakers would be able to command far more authority and respect across the aisle than partisans such as Mitch McConnell or Nancy Pelosi, the latter of whom would inevitably incur the resentment of House or Senate colleagues from the opposite side if they ever attempt to set rules of conduct, such as being required to pass through metal detectors.

Given the absence of a written constitution, a near-total absence of gridlock and conflict between the legislative and executive branches, and the relative ease with which laws are passed, lots of things can get done very quickly.

If, like the U.S. Senate in our timeline, the upper house is elected, then some gridlock may indeed ensue. Alternatively, in the event of a hung parliament where no single party commands a majority of seats and two or more parties are forced to cobble together a loose coalition government or agree to a confidence-and-supply arrangement whereby one or more parties agree to prop up a minority government in exchange for policy concessions, any resulting gridlock may lead to the collapse of a government, the dissolution of the legislature by the Governor-General, and a snap general election.

It took us almost 245 years for us to get where we are now and even if this is the end of democracy for us and the beginning of us being a communist country, we took longer than other countries to fall apart. Addendum: If we hadn't won independence the way we did, we'd be Canada without the French, practically.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

I will say the OP makes a fair case that the issue of slavery and racism wouldn't be as bad if we didn't declare independence. Never thought about that before. I would also add that Native Americans may also have been treated better under British rule, although still very shitty.
However, the United States was correct to declare independence, their reasons were valid.

At the time independence was declared, Americans had every moral right to break away in defiance as much as the people of Hong Kong have every moral right to be free of Chinese Communist rule. Had I lived during that time, I would've sided with the Patriots. But looking back at the Revolution in hindsight and knowing what we know now, it just didn't seem like a good idea. I would side with the Redcoats now knowing things would get better for both Britain and America eventually. But as people always say, hindsight is 20/20.

At first glance, it seems obvious that staying part of Britain might seem better from some perspectives, more controls over new settlements, British ideals about society allowing us to have a proper welfare state like Canada, less conflict with the First Nations, and so on. Ultimately, however, the only way that could succeed would be if the revolution ended in defeat but the ideas spread anyway. That's perfectly possible, but the window of opportunity for such a scenario is so absurdly short that it was never likely.

Also, GHK, keep in mind that the American Colonies would still be malcontent after such a defeat. I once did an alt-history RP called A World Without America, where the ideas survived even though the country was never born. What ended up happening was that the US was effectively resurrected in a somewhat more racist form in the mid 1830s after the abolition of slavery empire-wide. One way or another, America would have gotten independence, and if the experiment failed in 1776, the revived 1834 model, combined in timing with the Canadian uprisings, would've seen a disastrous series of conflicts, first against Britain to fight for freedom, and then against each other to define what freedom actually was.

Ultimately, the US would've won thanks to greater numbers and many of the problems we face today would've actually been amplified, such as systemic racism and opposition to expanded government in any shape as freedom to own other people would be far more explicit, similar in a way to the Confederates in our timeline, leading to an even more radicalised dichotomous nation than that which we have now.

History is like playing slot machines in that it ultimately boils down to timing and luck. Given what we know about the world and about what was likely to happen otherwise, I would say yes. The US, for all the flaws that came as a result of it, and for all the irritations that our national identity bring to ourselves and the world, should have declared independence because it was the best time to do so. Will the nation that was made survive for much longer? I am pessimistic, but I also think that the US was, at least, the right idea even if it was so full of exceptions and hypocrisies.

Well put. As with all hypotheticals, the butterfly effect can really get out of hand. Einstein going back in time to assassinate Adolf Hitler led to Soviet military aggression in Europe followed by the rise of Nod and the arrival of the Scrin. Soviet Premier Cherdenko's assassination of Einstein led to the rise of the Empire of the Rising Sun.

Regardless, America must endure. I firmly believe that a parliamentary democracy with proportional representation would go a long way toward solving, or at the very least alleviating, many of America's current social and political woes and allowing society to finally begin to move forward in earnest.

But this hypothetical also allows for the possibility that an American Revolution never occurred in the first place rather than an existing Revolution getting crushed. If that's the case, then there would be far less basis for resentment toward the British Crown. In addition, British appeasement in the wake of a failed revolution would've ensured that gradual political liberalization and increasing self-governance culminating in full independence would inevitably be the final outcome not just for America, but also for Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Britain itself underwent multiple stages of political liberalization throughout the 19th and early 20th century, and much of it was purely accidental and unforeseen. Liberalization also partly occurred due to a fear of a repeat of the communist French Revolution on British soil and the chaos and devastation that ensued due to a failure of the ancien regime to sufficiently respond to the needs of the people and liberalize quickly enough. Russia fell to communism for the same reason in 1918. But democracy wasn't exactly on everyone's minds in Europe during the 19th century. It's just something that gradually came to be and it's turned out to be great for everyone.

Personally, I prefer gradual and incremental change and improvement over short, sharp, sudden upheaval. This applies both to my personal life as well as society at large. It suits my personality well.

[Ethel mermania]

Yes

Why is Independence?

Everyone always asks what is independence or why is independence, but nobody ever asks how is independence.

We are insensitive clods that way, we really don't deserve her.

[Heloin]

The problem with the thought most of the time is that it seems to be mostly based on the idea that British rule would be any better for the Native Indians then American rule or that slavery would be abolished without the bloodshed that occurred in America. Both these ideas don’t make any sense. The American wars and ethnic cleansing of natives would likely continue just like they occurred in Canada and it’s unlikely that a British decree would really mean that slavery would just stop in America rather then spark another war of independence.

What makes your monarch legitimate?

The legitimacy of the British monarchy stems from the ancient traditions and laws of the United Kingdom and its predecessor states, stretching back to time immemorial.

The British monarchy takes their authority because a Norman Duke invaded and overthrew the actual English monarch. That Norman descends from a Viking raider who conquered Normandy. Every royal family and monarch in Europe is the descendent of warlords from after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Treating them like god came down and picked who was destined to be royal is far less interesting then the reality.

Unless you’re preparing the support my family claims in Wallonia then I welcome you’re insistence that I’m destined to own it because god said so.

[Rio Cana]

Yes, the United States deserved its freedom because of its unfair taxation and forcing British soldiers to live in colonial houses. The world would be way more conservative if the United States didn't declare independence (or didn't win) and became a commonwealth state instead. Liberalism would have less support and be oppressed, and it's possible that the world could have been ruled by monarchies for a while. I'm not referring to the UK specifically, but the consequences of the American revolution in general.

According to the following article, the people in the UK. paid much more in taxes while those in North America really did not.
Read - https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/07/03/te ... evolution/

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

The New Testament commands Christians living in the Roman Empire at the time it was written to submit to the authority of the Roman emperors;

Which does not translate to "monarchs rule by God's grace" despite what medieval kings might have wanted poor, uneducated peasants to think.

[Romae in Perpetuum]

The question in itself is fundamentally flawed. Like it or not, the USA has played a monumental, and totally unforeseeable in the late 18th century, part in the history of the world.

Without the American Revolution, and French and Spanish support to the rebels/patriots whoever, then the French Revolution would have at best not occurred as soon as it did and at worse not at all. The European mantra of Liberté, égalité, fraternité and other French ideas about liberty may never have existed at all or have been reduced to fringe theories in the Parisian coffee houses.

Putting this aside for the moment, it is certain that the Napoleonic Wars would not have happened at all. The rise of the First French Empire not only aided massively in spreading aforementioned ideas, but also, arguably, the most influential idea of the modern era.

Nationalism.

The crushing French victories over the Austrians and Prussians not only lead to the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire and the formation of the Kingdom of Italy and Confederation of the Rhine but also fostered strong ideas of German and Italian nationalism in these areas. Without Napoleon it's possible these two nations would never have formed and without Germany, in particular, Europe would be a changed continent. The ideas of Nationalism and Statehood were irreparably corrupted in the 20th Century and used to justify hideous evils though, without the catalyst of two World Wars, the evils of Imperialism would have continued far longer than they did. The role of the United States in the ending of the Age of Imperialism (and overseeing it's replacement with corporate Neo-Imperialism which, by no means at all good, remains better than say the Belgian Congo) must also be considered.

Though, lest I be accused of Eurocentrism, North America itself would also be entirely different. Manifest Destiny and ideas of American Exceptionalism would be extremely unlikely to form, which means no great push to the Pacific and no systematic genocide of the Native American inhabitants of the Midwest and Eastern Seaboard.

Yes, Britain and England before it were in no way nice to the Native populations. Had it been in the interest of the British Crown to conduct their own form of manifest destiny, they undoubtedly would have. But Britain showed no sign of wanting to push westward or, more accurately, allowing any of the 13 Colonies to do so. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 essentially fixed the border between Colonial and Native lands as Britain sighed new treaties with Native tribes and Confederations following their acquisition of French North America and the consolidation of that territory . This was a major bone of contention between London and the Colonies and certainly played a role in the outbreak of the Revolution.

I'm under no illusion that Britain was acting out of altruism or respect for the Native populations, this was a blatant attempt to ensure that the colonies couldn't expand inland, putting them out of the reach of the Royal Navy and the prospect of swift retaliation from Britain in the event of sedition. Regardless, any further European expansion westward would have been a gradual and less messy affair. Despite common belief it is unlikely that Britain would have seriously began to exercise more direct control over the American colonies, the distances involved were too great and Parliament had no real need to directly control what were, at the time, relatively unprofitable backwaters- it was the sugar producing Caribbean colonies the British valued! The only real value of the 13 colonies to Britain at the time were the cash crop producing South (which would not reach any sort of real economic value until the Industrial Revolution) and a place to Transport prisoners and dissidents.

If America continues in this role, Britain has no incentive to colonise Australia and New Zeeland and it remains possible that the various atrocities committed to the various indigenous peoples of Oceania may not have been committed, though it's easy enough to imagine the French or Dutch stepping into that role quite happily.

I have heard arguments that the British would have been less involved in India, due to the fact they would have had to maintain a greater presence in North America, but considering the immense wealth of India and the semi independent nature of the East India Company, I consider this unlikely.

To conclude, it is nearly impossible to say if the world in general would have been better without an independent America. It would certainly be drastically different, it is imminently possible that the Native American and Aborigine peoples would have faired far better than they did historically and perhaps this alone is enough to settle the matter, they could hardly end up in a worse state.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

The problem with the thought most of the time is that it seems to be mostly based on the idea that British rule would be any better for the Native Indians then American rule or that slavery would be abolished without the bloodshed that occurred in America. Both these ideas don’t make any sense. The American wars and ethnic cleansing of natives would likely continue just like they occurred in Canada and it’s unlikely that a British decree would really mean that slavery would just stop in America rather then spark another war of independence.

The legitimacy of the British monarchy stems from the ancient traditions and laws of the United Kingdom and its predecessor states, stretching back to time immemorial.

The British monarchy takes their authority because a Norman Duke invaded and overthrew the actual English monarch. That Norman descends from a Viking raider who conquered Normandy. Every royal family and monarch in Europe is the descendent of warlords from after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Treating them like god came down and picked who was destined to be royal is far less interesting then the reality.

Unless you’re preparing the support my family claims in Wallonia then I welcome you’re insistence that I’m destined to own it because god said so.

"Queen Heloin 'the Great' of Wallonia, by the Grace of God"?

Based.

Can you make me a knight when you take the throne?

[Heloin]

The problem with the thought most of the time is that it seems to be mostly based on the idea that British rule would be any better for the Native Indians then American rule or that slavery would be abolished without the bloodshed that occurred in America. Both these ideas don’t make any sense. The American wars and ethnic cleansing of natives would likely continue just like they occurred in Canada and it’s unlikely that a British decree would really mean that slavery would just stop in America rather then spark another war of independence.


The British monarchy takes their authority because a Norman Duke invaded and overthrew the actual English monarch. That Norman descends from a Viking raider who conquered Normandy. Every royal family and monarch in Europe is the descendent of warlords from after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Treating them like god came down and picked who was destined to be royal is far less interesting then the reality.

Unless you’re preparing the support my family claims in Wallonia then I welcome you’re insistence that I’m destined to own it because god said so.

"Queen Heloin 'the Great' of Wallonia, by the Grace of God"?

Based.

Can you make me a knight when you take the throne?

*nods royally*
Arise Sir Infinite O.W.E.

[Lemmingry]

I think if America didn't declare independence, Great Britain might have kept its colonies for some more time, as it became an inspiration for many independence movements. From there, UK could either a. keep most of the colonies and replace the US in terms of power or b. lose those colonies to other independence wars later and collapse. In the latter scenario, US would most likely go independent with a referendum or maybe UK would sell out the territories and US would not exist.

[Rio Cana]

I think if America didn't declare independence, Great Britain might have kept its colonies for some more time, as it became an inspiration for many independence movements. From there, UK could either a. keep most of the colonies and replace the US in terms of power or b. lose those colonies to other independence wars later and collapse. In the latter scenario, US would most likely go independent with a referendum or maybe UK would sell out the territories and US would not exist.

If the US had not gone independent chances are it would mirror Canadas population and all. However, it would most likely only stretch to the Mississippi river. US expanded because European immigrants were allowed in. You need people to expand your territory. A US controlled by the UK. would mean no massive European immigration into the US. The Oregon territory would most likely be controlled by the UK. and possibly be attached to Canada. Russia would keep Alaska and might decide to keep Northern California while Mexico would control the Southern half and all the other territories they lost to the US.

[Dorylaeumnia]

Yes, the United States deserved its freedom because of its unfair taxation and forcing British soldiers to live in colonial houses. The world would be way more conservative if the United States didn't declare independence (or didn't win) and became a commonwealth state instead. Liberalism would have less support and be oppressed, and it's possible that the world could have been ruled by monarchies for a while. I'm not referring to the UK specifically, but the consequences of the American revolution in general.

According to the following article, the people in the UK. paid much more in taxes while those in North America really did not.
Read - https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/07/03/te ... evolution/

Unfair taxation as in taxation without representation. That link has no use.

[The Two Jerseys]

Yes. Because we're still free while the UK criminalizes memes and requires you to have a loicense for teaspoons.

[Quartia and Karafuto]

It would've been far better if we never declared independence, because slavery could've been banned 40 years earlier if we stayed part of Britain.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

"Queen Heloin 'the Great' of Wallonia, by the Grace of God"?

Based.

Can you make me a knight when you take the throne?

*nods royally*
Arise Sir Infinite O.W.E.

sick

I mean, uh, verily.

[Atheris]

*nods royally*
Arise Sir Infinite O.W.E.

sick

I mean, uh, verily.

I hope you get on the Round Table, Sir Trollzyn!

[Adamede]

Yes. Should’ve taken Canada in the treaty too.

Also you do realize that the US uses the common law system right?

[Albrenia]

Yes. Because we're still free while the UK criminalizes memes and requires you to have a loicense for teaspoons.

I think you've an overblown notion of the 'oppression' that UK citizens face.

[Stellar Colonies]

yes

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Yes. Because we're still free while the UK criminalizes memes and requires you to have a loicense for teaspoons.

I think you've an overblown notion of the 'oppression' that UK citizens face.

Oi!

You got a loicense for that claim?

[Adamede]

I think you've an overblown notion of the 'oppression' that UK citizens face.

Oi!

You got a loicense for that claim?

You gotta loicense inspection permit mate?