Should America have declared independence in hindsight?

[Haja-Mishu]

yea, especially when the alternative is being british

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

As an American, no; we didn't deserve to win. We should have just paid the tax amount the British citizens were used to and moved on with our lives. I long for the day that we do crumble into revolution for what we've done to the world, because that day is long awaited.

bruh

Bruh the second.

yea, especially when the alternative is being british

The British and Americans get along well...most days.

[Albrenia]

I’ll be honest I was expecting like 80% of voters to say “no”. (Regarding the poll above.)

I’m glad that the votes came out the exact opposite regarding percentage.

Even I voted Yes, and I'd rather be a Brit than American.

[Sanistone]

No.

I say this as an American.

[Nejii]

Bruh the second.

yea, especially when the alternative is being british

The British and Americans get along well...most days.

Except for when they (the British) decide to chastise us (Americans) for our period of slavery and expansion into the American west. Mind you while blithely overlooking their own British Empire’s mass colonialism and butchering of indigenous peoples.

[Amazonia-on-Themiscyra]

Broke: Queen Elizabeth's rule is illegitimate because she is "just some lady".

Woke: Queen Elizabeth's rule is illegitimate because the rightful monarch is Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria Herzog von Bayern, Duke of Bavaria

I didn't know Jacobites were still a thing

[Nejii]

I’ll be honest I was expecting like 80% of voters to say “no”. (Regarding the poll above.)

I’m glad that the votes came out the exact opposite regarding percentage.

Even I voted Yes, and I'd rather be a Brit than American.

I’d rather be in my ancestral homeland of Armenia or maybe have been Japanese myself. Or Russian. Maybe Hungarian or a Gypsy.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

Bruh the second.


The British and Americans get along well...most days.

Except for when they (the British) decide to chastise us (Americans) for our period of slavery and expansion into the American west. Mind you while blithely overlooking their own British Empire’s mass colonialism and butchering of indigenous peoples.

Yeah...the Brits have been colonizing longer, but the only ones who get yelled at are the Americans. But I will be clear that expansion and invasion is not strictly a European/white thing, though Europe and America expanded a lot in recent history.

[Nejii]

Except for when they (the British) decide to chastise us (Americans) for our period of slavery and expansion into the American west. Mind you while blithely overlooking their own British Empire’s mass colonialism and butchering of indigenous peoples.

Yeah...the Brits have been colonizing longer, but the only ones who get yelled at are the Americans. But I will be clear that expansion and invasion is not strictly a European/white thing, though Europe and America expanded a lot in recent history.

It’s convenient that everybody lists colonial imperialism as a European thing only just because they had the most success in their campaigns. I mean seriously...

-The Huns
-The Mongolians
-The Timurids
-Persia and practically every middle eastern/Islamic nation or people bordering Europe.
-The Berber Moors

I mean and that’s just forays against Europe.

[Miku the Based]

I believe my ancestors still supported Independence even though they were ultimately persecuted by the Patriots so yes, I support Independence. Britain simply were not treating Americans as citizens but subjects.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

Yeah...the Brits have been colonizing longer, but the only ones who get yelled at are the Americans. But I will be clear that expansion and invasion is not strictly a European/white thing, though Europe and America expanded a lot in recent history.

It’s convenient that everybody lists colonial imperialism as a European thing only just because they had the most success in their campaigns. I mean seriously...

-The Huns
-The Mongolians
-The Timurids
-Persia and practically every middle eastern/Islamic nation or people bordering Europe.
-The Berber Moors

I mean and that’s just forays against Europe.

I think it's because American/European imperialism is the most modern, so it is more recent in the collective memory.

[Adamede]

No.

I say this as an American.

Tories are free to leave.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

No.

I say this as an American.

Tories are free to leave.

*Dumps tea into the harbor*

[Routcher]

Broke: Queen Elizabeth's rule is illegitimate because she is "just some lady".

Woke: Queen Elizabeth's rule is illegitimate because the rightful monarch is Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria Herzog von Bayern, Duke of Bavaria

I didn't know Jacobites were still a thing

Well, as long as the good Duke refuses to press his claim, it's a dead movement. But I would support him if he had a change of heart on the matter.

[Luziyca]

Honestly the only question was when. If they didn't declare independence in 1776, and if we assume they didn't rebel (which let's be honest they probably would have when slavery got banned outright in the British Empire), they'd probably end up becoming independent in a gradual process much like Canada, Australia, or New Zealand.

Really, the issue of America is more that virtually all governments, who last long enough, only tend to last for roughly three hundred years without substantial change: the Ming and the Qing dynasties are two really good examples of this, as they ruled China from 1368 to 1644 and from 1644 to 1912 respectively, while the Romanovs ruled from 1613 until they were overthrown by the Bolsheviks in 1917. So really, America's probably about due for a radical change in governance, and having America become independent later would've just kicked the problem down the road: instead of occurring now, it'd occur in the 2200s or so.

[Adamede]

Tories are free to leave.

*Dumps tea into the harbor*

*Yankees my doodle with patriotic intent *

[Nilokeras]

The incorrect assumption built into the heart of the OP's wall of text and tepid fantasies is that the cozy independence of places like Canada and Australia were built off of the lessons colonial powers learned in the American war of independence and all of the other movements that spawned out of them in South America. One doesn't exist without the other.

And of course in the OP's beatific vision of an America without too many black people, it saves the biggest wave of its 'if' machine to the question of slavery which just goes away in a puff of imperial smoke, and definitely doesn't just cause Independence War 2: This Time It's About ''States Rights'' all over again.

[Stellar Colonies]

Canada wouldn't exist as we know it because a lot of the initial Anglo-descendant people there are American Loyalists from the American Revolution.

Britain might've been more reluctant about banning slavery with the cash crops flowing out of the South.

No American Revolution possibly leads to an altered French Revolution or none at all, which would change or erase the Napoleonic Wars, which basically upends almost all of history since the late 18^th century as we know it.

There's a difference between no revolution at all and a crushed revolution, holding down the 13 Colonies in the latter case would probably be impossible to maintain in the long term.

I'm not an expert, so I could be wrong on all four counts.

[The united American-Isreali empire]

id say yes.

[Kowani]

Yeah...the Brits have been colonizing longer, but the only ones who get yelled at are the Americans. But I will be clear that expansion and invasion is not strictly a European/white thing, though Europe and America expanded a lot in recent history.

It’s convenient that everybody lists colonial imperialism as a European thing only just because they had the most success in their campaigns. I mean seriously...

-The Huns
-The Mongolians
-The Timurids
-Persia and practically every middle eastern/Islamic nation or people bordering Europe.
-The Berber Moors

I mean and that’s just forays against Europe.

okay
these polities were all imperialistic, but they were not colonialist, not in the same way European colonialism worked
the paradigms were very different
it doesn't make them good, but it does make them different

[Nilokeras]

It’s convenient that everybody lists colonial imperialism as a European thing only just because they had the most success in their campaigns. I mean seriously...

-The Huns
-The Mongolians
-The Timurids
-Persia and practically every middle eastern/Islamic nation or people bordering Europe.
-The Berber Moors

I mean and that’s just forays against Europe.

okay
these polities were all imperialistic, but they were not colonialist, not in the same way European colonialism worked
the paradigms were very different
it doesn't make them good, but it does make them different

Not even that imperialistic, really, especially the steppe confederations. Expecting that level of nuance from someone who seems to have mistaken the Umayyad caliphate for the redundantly ethnic 'Berber Moors' may be a bit optimistic however.

[Sundiata]

Well, by that point the British had already done irreparable damage upon themselves through the kingship of Henry the 8th. Still, the American revolution even further distanced itself from the way a state should be managed. I would have opposed the American revolution in principle.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Well the alternative could not be remaining a colony forever. So Britain would have to agree on some kind of power-sharing or co-dependence bond (like mutual defense written into the US constitution, when that got written) which could only be based on relative population. Further given that America was growing fast in every way and could not be denied trade by peaceful means, Britain would be idiots to give away any of their sovereignty in exchange for temporary control over the US.

As long as Britain continued to assert colonial control over America, declaring Independence on the assumption America would have to fight for it, was the right move.

Was there some way to negotiate Independence? Plenty of other colonies did. But they generally did it LATER. I think some new nation had to be first, to teach the British a lesson, and the sooner the better really. Well done America!

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

The incorrect assumption built into the heart of the OP's wall of text and tepid fantasies is that the cozy independence of places like Canada and Australia were built off of the lessons colonial powers learned in the American war of independence and all of the other movements that spawned out of them in South America. One doesn't exist without the other.

The "cozy independence" of Australia came more than a century later. But in the meantime the yoke of colonialism did not weigh too heavy.

Considering Britain's rather evil intentions from the start, (to found an ethnically British nation regardless of what the people already filling the continent to carrying capacity, using the upper-crust of their enormous criminal class), "free land" worked much as it did in the US. Land is the primal "means of production" if you will, and when it is appropriated at gunpoint and handed to an ex-petty-criminal, that person generally becomes a good worker. Having now something to lose, they likely become a good citizen too.

Britain regulated development in Australia, sometimes supporting it with grants but mostly extracting money by the advantage in trade (owning the ships for instance!). I think British experience with the US informed that regulation. Two significant differences: convicts and even the free-settlers with farming experience, struggled to grow anything in the southern soils, meaning the population did not expand rapidly by birth. Trade wasn't enough to attract non-British buyers. Even the major trade good, wool, wasn't worth a lot in Europe. The other thing is the longer sea passage, which combined with low value of goods trade, made possible a monopoly of goods to and from Britain, maintained by British dominance of the ships themselves.

Australia's population and productive capacity grew more slowly than America's, and Britain only needed a light and smart hand to control it, but eventually Australia had the de facto independence to demand the real thing. By then Britain had given up other colonies so it was no longer a matter of pride. Independence was achieved by the British Parliament and the Australian Parliament both passing the exact same bill, and I can't imagine anything more mutual and fair. Canada used the same.

Someone had to declare independence first, and it was probably going to have to be violent to change Britain's colonialist ways. America was invaded early, and developed quickly, and had relatively easy trade with all European nations not just Britain. I don't think America was first because they were the bravest or the most outraged by injustice. America was just first.

A lot of blood was shed in the Boer Wars too, which is significant because they started well before Australian independence, while South African independence came 8 years after. Australia didn't have to threaten Britain with another foreign war at all, but if we had it would have been one too many and Britain would have surrendered. The US was the greatest precedent, but we all contributed to the lesson 'it's better to have allies than colonies' that allowed Britain to give only weak defense of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh. A war in that case would have been one-sided and among the most deadly in history.

[Nejii]

It’s convenient that everybody lists colonial imperialism as a European thing only just because they had the most success in their campaigns. I mean seriously...

-The Huns
-The Mongolians
-The Timurids
-Persia and practically every middle eastern/Islamic nation or people bordering Europe.
-The Berber Moors

I mean and that’s just forays against Europe.

okay
these polities were all imperialistic, but they were not colonialist, not in the same way European colonialism worked
the paradigms were very different
it doesn't make them good, but it does make them different

colonialism: the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

The Europeans did this of course.

But the Moors - excuse me - the Umayyad caliphate, one could say also did this. They swarmed through Iberia and up towards France and were stopped at the battle of Tours. Even after the caliphate fell Iberia remained under the rule of invasive foreigners which was enforced by militarism. The Europeans native to Iberia fought against this foreign presence for centuries (the Recqonquista).

The native peoples of America were indeed subject to colonial imperialism and many of them fought the invading Europeans to the bitter end. Yes, things coursed differently in the Americas regarding the European conquest, but let’s not pretend like it was something brand new to history.
(I mean seriously, history is built on conquest and expansionism.)

Yes, European colonialism was without question immensely historically impactful and did result in the extinction of entire cultures and the sovereignty of indigenous folk. That makes it unique for the worst. But history is full of colonial imperialism. The base point I’m drilling at is that it’s annoying that people pretend like the European expansion into the Western Hemisphere is a solely unique happening throughout all of history. (In regards to invading and subjugating other cultures and peoples.)

But this tangential to the thread in question unfortunately.