Would America Be Better Off Staying As A British Colony?

[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.

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

Which they wouldn't be if there'd been a successful abolitionist movement in the colonies.

[The Jamesian Republic]

I think had we remained a colony at some point we would transition into self rule like Canada and Australia did. And whatever territory that would make up this alternate America (assuming it doesn’t become a part of Canada) would eventually unite and from the 1800s-mid 1900s this America would be known as the Dominion of America and then the Commonwealth of America.

[Ethel mermania]

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

Which they wouldn't be if there'd been a successful abolitionist movement in the colonies.

In 1776 it didn't exist. And if it did it would have no affect on the revolution.

The declaration was in 1776, the constitution in 1789. They were two very different events and unrelated to each other

[Makko Oko]

I think had we remained a colony at some point we would transition into self rule like Canada and Australia did. And whatever territory that would make up this alternate America (assuming it doesn’t become a part of Canada) would eventually unite and from the 1800s-mid 1900s this America would be known as the Dominion of America and then the Commonwealth of America.

I'm just imagining Queen Elizabeth II of America right now lol

[The Jamesian Republic]

I think had we remained a colony at some point we would transition into self rule like Canada and Australia did. And whatever territory that would make up this alternate America (assuming it doesn’t become a part of Canada) would eventually unite and from the 1800s-mid 1900s this America would be known as the Dominion of America and then the Commonwealth of America.

I'm just imagining Queen Elizabeth II of America right now lol

Yeah.

Imagine Prime Minister Joe Biden.

Or Governor General Nancy Pelosi.

[Ifreann]

Which they wouldn't be if there'd been a successful abolitionist movement in the colonies.

In 1776 it didn't exist.

But there could have been.

And if it did it would have no affect on the revolution.

The premise of this thread is that there was no revolution.

The declaration was in 1776, the constitution in 1789. They were two very different events and unrelated to each other

I'm aware. I don't know why you're telling me history trivia when the whole idea here is alternate history.

[The Archregimancy]

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.

At the risk of a minor derail, I've travelled through the eastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and care very much about both illegal resource exploitation in the country and the manner in which those resources are exploited, thank you very much.

[The Jamesian Republic]

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

The role of the monarchy is to have all of their power be limited to ceremonial stuff leaving the governing it to a democratically elected Prime Minister and forced into a tiny apartment.

[Makko Oko]

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

The role of the monarchy is to have all of their power be limited to ceremonial stuff leaving the governing it to a democratically elected Prime Minister and forced into a tiny apartment.

Okay now hold up here, flag on the play. It depends on the TYPE of Monarchy. There are multiple types. What you're speaking of is a Parliamentary Monarchy, but there is such a thing as an Absolute Monarchy, where all power is vested in the Monarch, and that is exactly what the empire was before its downfall.

[Ifreann]

All monarchs are cringe except King Morgott, last of all kings.

[The Archregimancy]

Which they wouldn't be if there'd been a successful abolitionist movement in the colonies.

In 1776 it didn't exist. And if it did it would have no affect on the revolution.

The first formal abolitionist society in the colonies, the Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage (given Pennsylvania's Quaker roots, perhaps unsurprisingly founded in the latter colony), was formed in 1775. Last time I checked, 1775 came before 1776; at least for those of us who aren't Gallifreyan.

But leaving aside quibbling over the distinction between formal societies and informal movements, there were several important abolitionist movements in what became the United States in the colonial period; they just tended to be organised informally at the local / individual colony level. Quakers were particularly active in opposing slavery - though it's fair to note the Society of Friends didn't introduce a blanket ban on slavery in North America until 1776. Meanwhile, Anti-slavery pamphlets were being published in the colonies as early as 1700. Bans on slavery introduced in several mid-Atlantic and northern states from 1776 through 1784 didn't occur in a vacuum; they were possible because strong abolitionist movements already existed on the ground in multiple colonies / states.

[Sauros]

Extremely tough question. Either history goes the same as OTL and the British colonial empire still falls, or the failure of the American Revolution empowers the British Empire so much so that it remains intact into the modern day.

If it's the former, I actually think 'America' (under whatever name it has ITTL) could have ended up better than it has, only that's a could and not a would. However, in the case of the latter, I can only see it either ending up just as bad or worse than the OTL U.S.

So in a sense, it's really a gamble; and despite being rather anti-US, I prefer 'America' ending up the same way as OTL rather than going an unknown, alternate route that could have very bad implications for the rest of the world.

That's a fair viewpoint, and I can agree with that. I don't know what ITTL and OTL mean though, I only know IRL, but anyways, other than that, I actually imagined the British Empire still falling and becoming the UK, and America would be forced to be heat-only, no A/C, just like the rest of Britain, so much so that a lot of people die from heat stroke. Either that, or the UK, due to the ownership of America, actually ends up implementing A/C globally, much like the IRL US has, and many other countries.

I haven't given much thought to the actual empire potentially surviving if America were to stay in its clutches, but that raises more questions than it answers. For one, what would happen during World War 2, would the Nazi's actually win due to this, because America may have not managed to develop the atomic bomb against Japan?

For your information, ITTL means "in this timeline" and OTL means "our timeline" (AKA real-life).

[Hispida]

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

The role of the monarchy is to have all of their power be limited to ceremonial stuff leaving the governing it to a democratically elected Prime Minister and forced into a tiny apartment.

monarchy in all forms is an abomination and should be stamped out

[Salus Maior]

Not really, no.

[Soviet cat]

I don't believe in Colonialism, but I don't support US imperialism

[Salus Maior]

The role of the monarchy is to have all of their power be limited to ceremonial stuff leaving the governing it to a democratically elected Prime Minister and forced into a tiny apartment.

monarchy in all forms is an abomination and should be stamped out

I feel the same about Marxism.

[Hispida]

monarchy in all forms is an abomination and should be stamped out

I feel the same about Marxism.

ok

[Informed Consent]

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

Actually, translated through the colonial governors, the laws were quite egregious and capricious.
The Revolution began with far more unarmed participants than is generally known.
That was the entire point of Lexington and Concorde, rebels getting to the armories before the red coats could secure them against the colonists.

[Free Algerstonia]

monarchy in all forms is an abomination and should be stamped out

I feel the same about Marxism.

this town ain't big enough for the two of us

[PhilTech]

The role of the monarchy is to have all of their power be limited to ceremonial stuff leaving the governing it to a democratically elected Prime Minister and forced into a tiny apartment.

monarchy in all forms is an abomination and should be stamped out

Welp, culture is everything.

Me, as an easterner without monarchies, we view the UK as a very cultured nation just by the virtue of their monarchy.

TL;DR: Their monarchy sells them.

[Hispida]

monarchy in all forms is an abomination and should be stamped out

Welp, culture is everything.

Me, as an easterner without monarchies, we view the UK as a very cultured nation just by the virtue of their monarchy.

TL;DR: Their monarchy sells them.

monarchy is one of the last vestiges of "divine right" bullshit that places the fantastical whimsy of a single individual over literally anything else. it is from a bygone era when a single individual was exalted as necessary to preserve a state, but it's been proven time and time again that a single person is not necessary for anything in government, let alone running an entire country even as a figurehead. monarchy deserved in 1776, it deserved to die in 1781, it deserved to die in 1815, it deserved to die in 1848, it deserved to die in 1871, it deserved to die in 1918 --- it is a relic from a bygone era, and to quote shakespeare, "signifying nothing."

[The Jamesian Republic]

The role of the monarchy is to have all of their power be limited to ceremonial stuff leaving the governing it to a democratically elected Prime Minister and forced into a tiny apartment.

Okay now hold up here, flag on the play. It depends on the TYPE of Monarchy. There are multiple types. What you're speaking of is a Parliamentary Monarchy, but there is such a thing as an Absolute Monarchy, where all power is vested in the Monarch, and that is exactly what the empire was before its downfall.

I’m fine with ceremonial monarchs. Just not in America.

[Makko Oko]

Welp, culture is everything.

Me, as an easterner without monarchies, we view the UK as a very cultured nation just by the virtue of their monarchy.

TL;DR: Their monarchy sells them.

monarchy is one of the last vestiges of "divine right" bullshit that places the fantastical whimsy of a single individual over literally anything else. it is from a bygone era when a single individual was exalted as necessary to preserve a state, but it's been proven time and time again that a single person is not necessary for anything in government, let alone running an entire country even as a figurehead. monarchy deserved in 1776, it deserved to die in 1781, it deserved to die in 1815, it deserved to die in 1848, it deserved to die in 1871, it deserved to die in 1918 --- it is a relic from a bygone era, and to quote shakespeare, "signifying nothing."

So by your definition, get rid of the world's current form of democracy and replace it all with Parliaments as the heads of state and government to make every decision with a majority vote. Objectively, the RL President of the United States, is, in your definition, "from a bygone era when a single individual was exalted as necessary to preserve a state".

[Hispida]

monarchy is one of the last vestiges of "divine right" bullshit that places the fantastical whimsy of a single individual over literally anything else. it is from a bygone era when a single individual was exalted as necessary to preserve a state, but it's been proven time and time again that a single person is not necessary for anything in government, let alone running an entire country even as a figurehead. monarchy deserved in 1776, it deserved to die in 1781, it deserved to die in 1815, it deserved to die in 1848, it deserved to die in 1871, it deserved to die in 1918 --- it is a relic from a bygone era, and to quote shakespeare, "signifying nothing."

So by your definition, get rid of the world's current form of democracy and replace it all with Parliaments as the heads of state and government to make every decision with a majority vote.

yes

[Nova Catania]

No. Not during the 18th century, as we would've been taxed unfairly, slavery would still be in place, and they'd be bullies in general. During the Industrial Revolution, it’s likely that American technological advancements wouldn’t have happened. Westward Expansion would’ve happened slowly, or not at al, since that would still be Spain’s land. I don’t think it would get better until the late 19th and early 20th century. Even then. WWI would have hit us harder, as we’d be forced to send troops earlier, even though it might have ended the war earlier, U-Boat attacks would’ve been more common. We’d be going through their postwar depression, making the Great one worse. WWII would’ve been hell. The Nazis would’ve ravaged the Eastern Seaboard, the Japanese would’ve attacked earlier, and the Manhattan project may never have been, forcing a costly, and deadly land invasion of Japan, possibly dragging out the war. The Cold War might not have been as bad, but I’m guessing we’d develop nukes anyway, simply postponing the start of hostilities. We’d also be in the EU (at least for a while), and I guarantee you, Americans would be pissed. Finally, think of the ramifications on other countries, without America leading the way, no other colonies would have broken off, extending the British oppression on their colonies. Also the South American colonies of Spain and Portugal would also probably be theirs still, and they were just as bad. So, even with all the crap that has ensued in the last 250-ish years, I’m glad we broke off, or else the crap would have been worse.