Would America Be Better Off Staying As A British Colony?

[Ethel mermania]

I've been told a few times on this forum that America's independence simply could not have happened if there had been serious pushback against slavery. That the support of slaveholding colonies, and the wealthy slavers who ran them, was a necessity for throwing off the yoke of the hated British, and therefore there needed to be an acceptance of slavery.

If the movement for independence had failed, perhaps all that agitation for equality and liberty could have been turned towards more useful ends than a tax break for George Washington. Maybe there could have been a successful abolitionist movement in the wake of a fizzled out independence movement.

Brittan was a slave state at the time, the British colonies in the Caribbean were hell holes for their slaves.

No one was fighting for the freedom of slaves in 1776.

[Ifreann]

I've been told a few times on this forum that America's independence simply could not have happened if there had been serious pushback against slavery. That the support of slaveholding colonies, and the wealthy slavers who ran them, was a necessity for throwing off the yoke of the hated British, and therefore there needed to be an acceptance of slavery.

If the movement for independence had failed, perhaps all that agitation for equality and liberty could have been turned towards more useful ends than a tax break for George Washington. Maybe there could have been a successful abolitionist movement in the wake of a fizzled out independence movement.

Brittan was a slave state at the time, the British colonies in the Caribbean were hell holes for their slaves.

And I am suggesting the possibility that without the independence movement, there could have been an abolitionist movement. Lots of people in the colonies wanted change. That's how they were sold on independence, they were promised a new nation in which all people would be free and equal.

No one was fighting for the freedom of slaves in 1776.

Plenty of people were. People have always fought slavery. Their names might not always make it into the history books, but it doesn't take advanced knowledge of rocket surgery to see people in chains, toiling miserably, and realise that that shit sucks.

[Nimzonia]

Realistically, in this scenario, only America's history would be modified

Realistically in this scenario, the world by the 21st century would be utterly unrecognisable to anyone living in our timeline due to the butterfly effect. The OP might as well be asking if the US would be better off in a bizarro world where the main powers are the Union of Ottoman Socialist Republics and a fascist Dutch-speaking Australia, and meanwhile India is 15 separate countries, Germany doesn't exist, Russia is an islamic theocracy, and the whole of Africa is an uninhabitable radioactive wasteland due to nuclear weapons being used in colonial wars.

[Kerwa]

Plenty of people were. People have always fought slavery. Their names might not always make it into the history books, but it doesn't take advanced knowledge of rocket surgery to see people in chains, toiling miserably, and realise that that shit sucks.

Nobody cares about the cobalt mines in the Congo. In fact they are subsidized by western taxpayers - to the approval of left.

[Ifreann]

Plenty of people were. People have always fought slavery. Their names might not always make it into the history books, but it doesn't take advanced knowledge of rocket surgery to see people in chains, toiling miserably, and realise that that shit sucks.

Nobody cares about the cobalt mines in the Congo. In fact they are subsidized by western taxpayers - to the approval of left.

[Kerwa]

Nobody cares about the cobalt mines in the Congo. In fact they are subsidized by western taxpayers - to the approval of left.

Can’t destroy an illusion.

[Ifreann]

Can’t destroy an illusion.

So the people you're talking about are illusory? Cool.

[Huron League]

America would be better off staying as a British colony.

Are you sure? They would have had BoJo as PM.

Hey we had The Donald for four more years than was necessary.

[Informed Consent]

I've been told a few times on this forum that America's independence simply could not have happened if there had been serious pushback against slavery. That the support of slaveholding colonies, and the wealthy slavers who ran them, was a necessity for throwing off the yoke of the hated British, and therefore there needed to be an acceptance of slavery.

If the movement for independence had failed, perhaps all that agitation for equality and liberty could have been turned towards more useful ends than a tax break for George Washington. Maybe there could have been a successful abolitionist movement in the wake of a fizzled out independence movement.

That is a mirror darkly observation.
While there was contention on the matter of slavery, it was tabled for greater revolutionary concerns, to be taken up again when there was a forum completely free to consider the matter.
In that argument, pursuing a spirit of absolute political unity, and realizing that the new nation as a motley band of agrarian states, and a few mercantile ports now kicked out of the closed incestuous loop of imperial trading, would have no economy.
The birth of the nation would be painful, as the formation of society always is in one fashion or another.

Never mind that the eventual failure of British, and other European empire would leave all of its commonwealth children tossed on a very stormy sea in a leaky life boat, and I doubt any would be in as good condition as they are today.

As a descendent of those unfortunate people whose plight was punted through the first century of US history, I recognize that in the short term our condition may have been markedly improved under continued British rule, but the Democrat Party and its Great Society has taught me how one can bind a people intellectually as well as physically.
My observation of the evolution of commonwealth politics does not allow an optimistic appraisal of the long term benefits to my people of continued British suffrage, trading one welfare state for another as it were.
Culturally speaking, I have visited many of those countries, and while very pleasant places in general, I did detect some ethnic tensions as pronounced, and identity politics just as dishonest as what I have to contend with at home.

[Sundiata]

America would be better off staying as a British colony.

Care to share why you think this? I'm genuinely curious as to your thoughts on this. Maybe the current political situation polarized that thought (not a negative comment, just a thought)?

The British structure of government is just closer to ideal, especially in having a monarchy.

[Ifreann]

Care to share why you think this? I'm genuinely curious as to your thoughts on this. Maybe the current political situation polarized that thought (not a negative comment, just a thought)?

The British structure of government is just closer to ideal, especially in having a monarchy.

Monarchies are bad, though.

[Heloin]

Care to share why you think this? I'm genuinely curious as to your thoughts on this. Maybe the current political situation polarized that thought (not a negative comment, just a thought)?

The British structure of government is just closer to ideal, especially in having a monarchy.

*heloin was last seen running into the woods, caught in a fit of manic laughter*

[Huron League]

America would be better off staying as a British colony.

Are you sure? They would have had BoJo as PM.

Hey we had The Donald for four more years than was necessary.

[Hispida]

listen bro i hate the US and everything it stands for but absolutely not

the US may be bad but the 13 colonies under the british were a whole lot worse

the only thing i can say that was genuinely better under the british was the fact that settlers weren't allowed to advance past the appalachians and steal native land. also india and probably australia would be saved from british domination (but that would probably just lead to another group taking control, probably the french/dutch/portuguese)

[Hispida]

Care to share why you think this? I'm genuinely curious as to your thoughts on this. Maybe the current political situation polarized that thought (not a negative comment, just a thought)?

The British structure of government is just closer to ideal, especially in having a monarchy.

the role of monarchy is to be rolled up in an ugly carpet, kicked down the stairs, and set on fire

[Makko Oko]

I think you're all forgetting that in the modern UK, there is no Constitution, so how would that fare for a British-ruled America?

[Ifreann]

I think you're all forgetting that in the modern UK, there is no Constitution, so how would that fare for a British-ruled America?

The UK does have a constitution, it's jut not one single document.

[Makko Oko]

I think you're all forgetting that in the modern UK, there is no Constitution, so how would that fare for a British-ruled America?

The UK does have a constitution, it's jut not one single document.

Are you saying the laws count as the Constitution? Genuinely confused, don't know much about that subject

[Sordhau]

No, we'd still be under a monarch. Which is a very bad thing.

[Sordhau]

The British structure of government is just closer to ideal, especially in having a monarchy.

the role of monarchy is to be rolled up in an ugly carpet, kicked down the stairs, and set on fire

Based.

[Minata]

If Britain owns America, there would be no gun violence, right?

[Ifreann]

The UK does have a constitution, it's jut not one single document.

Are you saying the laws count as the Constitution? Genuinely confused, don't know much about that subject

Not all laws, but the laws, treaties, and other arrangements that establish what the UK government is and how it functions, the extent and limits of the powers of Parliament, the devolved governments, the judiciary, etc, are the UK constitution.

[Makko Oko]

If Britain owns America, there would be no gun violence, right?

Correct, just stabbings and knife violence lol

[Haganham]

I've been told a few times on this forum that America's independence simply could not have happened if there had been serious pushback against slavery. That the support of slaveholding colonies, and the wealthy slavers who ran them, was a necessity for throwing off the yoke of the hated British, and therefore there needed to be an acceptance of slavery.

If the movement for independence had failed, perhaps all that agitation for equality and liberty could have been turned towards more useful ends than a tax break for George Washington. Maybe there could have been a successful abolitionist movement in the wake of a fizzled out independence movement.

Realisticly the British empire is unlikely to have banned the atlantic slave trade if it was still profiting from the american slave states.

[Ethel mermania]

If Britain owns America, there would be no gun violence, right?

Who knows. Britian did not rule with a particularly heavy touch until they tried to get the Americans to pay for the French and Indian wars.

I doubt Britain would have ever tried to impose their gun laws on the colonies