Would America Be Better Off Staying As A British Colony?

[Hispida]

slavery would still be in place

i mean... it was OTL as well

Westward Expansion would’ve happened slowly, or not at al

wait that's a good thing

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.

WW1 and WW2 probably wouldn't happen in any recognizable way tbh. assuming this is a world with no american revolution, that likely means no (or a less radical) french revolution, which means no napoleon, which means world history is irrevocably changed.

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.

see above

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.

this is a decent point

[Salus Maior]

Westward expansion would have happened regardless. There was literally nothing the British could do to keep their colonists from pushing west.

[Ifreann]

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.

Nothing says "cultured" like Prince Andrew the Sweatless.

[Nova Catania]

I disagree with the above Hispida in only one point. Westward Expansion. All that land would have been Spain’s. And they mistreated the natives just as much. The Louisiana Purchase would not have happened, so, Louis (who likely would have kept his head) might not sell. Now that I think about it, the lack of French Revolution, and no rise of Napoleon would have a huge effect on history, so I agree with you on that now. I’m glad we agree on the worldwide effects, and possible lack of democracy.

[Salus Maior]

I disagree with the above in only one point. Westward Expansion. All that land would have been Spain’s. And they mistreated the natives just as much. The Louisiana Purchase would not have happened, so, Louis (who likely would have kept his head) might not sell. Now that I think about it, the lack of French Revolution, and no rise of Napoleon would have a huge effect on history, so I agree with you on that now.

Sure, it's Spain's in name but nobody (aside from the natives who nobody cared about) lived there. What the colonists were doing in surveying and selling land that wasn't theirs was already illegal. It probably would have just eventually led to war between Britain and Spain.

[American Collectivism]

no, next

[Ethel mermania]

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.

The quakers and the puritans to my knowledge were abolitionist from the get go.

If I recall properly.. The first great awaking, which was in colonial times accepted black members and help Christianize the black community. It was the second great awaking that was the start of the abolitionist movement, which was after the revolution

[Sundiata]

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

An aimless man knows no Lordship.

[Thomasi]

Yes here is why.

At the time of American independence the British had just fended off the French in the 7 years war, and they had to raise taxes to pay off their war debts. The colonists got upset and decided to revolt.

If they hadn't the United States and Canada are likely 1 nation under British North America Probably known as Just America (sorry my Canadian friends). There is no expansion westward and that means that the native tribes stay intact.

Now for why we would be better off,

1. We would be under a parliamentary system and still have the Queen as our head of state and a Prime minister and state level Premieres. The constitution is almost certainty the British North America Act, and we likely stay a loose confederation of state/provinces like Canada was until the 1980s

2. Race relations are much better in this timeline. When the British Outlaw slavery in the early 1800s thats is, its over no civil war, not troubles, the slave owners are compensated for their lost "property" and everyone moves on. There is nom segregation and by the time of independence probably around the WWI cultures are a lot more mixed than in our time line.

I can prove this by the fact that in the UK today and in Australia/NZ and Canada there is no distinct dialect or accent between the races like there is in the US. You can't listen to a British radio station and tell what race the speaker is. Because there was no history of segregation or overt racism in the county.

3. We have all the economic and social freedoms that Europe has because our ultra conservative and capitalist culture is unable to form. Climate change is likely taken seriously and we aren't on the verge of a climate catastrophe, we don't have anti vax issues, the poor aren't stigmatized.

4. We wouldn't be constantly at war which would be better for ourselves and our neighbors. Latin America and the Middle east aren't distabliazed and thus states like Iran are secular democracies. The world is better off and we don't have so many enemies.

Over all both America and the World would be better off, Native American tribes and nations would still exists west of the Mississippi as the war of 1812 and the Mexican American war don't result in our countries moving west.

[Hispida]

Yes here is why.

At the time of American independence the British had just fended off the French in the 7 years war, and they had to raise taxes to pay off their war debts. The colonists got upset and decided to revolt.

that's not...
even close

this is an elementary school knowledge of the american revolution. it was the culmination of a lot of things, such as blockaded ports, dissolved legislatures, repatriation to be court martialed, ruined charters, shutdowns of local laws, military intimidation, forcing soldiers to be stationed, the inability to impeach and remove governors, martial law in peacetime, uncompensated seizure of food and material, arbitrary raids and attacks on coastal towns, treating captured americans as slaves, the lack of a right to a jury in massachusetts, and on and on

[Thomasi]

Yes here is why.

At the time of American independence the British had just fended off the French in the 7 years war, and they had to raise taxes to pay off their war debts. The colonists got upset and decided to revolt.

that's not...
even close

this is an elementary school knowledge of the american revolution. it was the culmination of a lot of things, such as blockaded ports, dissolved legislatures, repatriation to be court martialed, ruined charters, shutdowns of local laws, military intimidation, forcing soldiers to be stationed, the inability to impeach and remove governors, martial law in peacetime, uncompensated seizure of food and material, arbitrary raids and attacks on coastal towns, treating captured americans as slaves, the lack of a right to a jury in massachusetts, and on and on

1. Was this before or after they refused to pay their taxes

2. Was this more or less rights than people on the mainland had?

[The Reformed American Republic]

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.

While slavery probably would have ended earlier, that probably would be due to the Slavery Abolition Law being passed in 1833 applying to the American colonies as opposed to a successful abolitionist movement coming about specifically due to the American Revolution's failure.

---

As for the main OP question, we'd still gain independence except it would be further down the road and we'd have a different political system. Whether that would be better depends on what political forces rise up as a result.

[Thomasi]

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.

While slavery probably would have ended earlier, that probably would be due to the Slavery Abolition Law being passed in 1833 applying to the American colonies as opposed to a successful abolitionist movement coming about specifically due to the American Revolution's failure.

---

As for the main OP question, we'd still gain independence except it would be further down the road and we'd have a different political system. Whether that would be better depends on what political forces rise up as a result.

We'd be part of Canada or the US and Canada would be 1 nation.

[Informed Consent]

that's not...
even close

this is an elementary school knowledge of the american revolution. it was the culmination of a lot of things, such as blockaded ports, dissolved legislatures, repatriation to be court martialed, ruined charters, shutdowns of local laws, military intimidation, forcing soldiers to be stationed, the inability to impeach and remove governors, martial law in peacetime, uncompensated seizure of food and material, arbitrary raids and attacks on coastal towns, treating captured americans as slaves, the lack of a right to a jury in massachusetts, and on and on

1. Was this before or after they refused to pay their taxes

2. Was this more or less rights than people on the mainland had?

Did not matter, really.
Setting aside all of the other complaints, colonial sentiment had been stewing in a radically unfair economic environment where colonials could only trade within a closed limited loop.
Where English brokers controlled pricing of goods at both ends leaving colonists paying way too much for English goods of which many they were legally compelled to purchase even before the Intolerable Acts.
Meanwhile, the American colonists received ridiculous compensation for product shipped to England, and perpetually skirting bankruptcy.
On the upside, it helped develop the classical American spirit of innovation.
Nothing more motivating than having to out cheat cheaters to survive.

The British government like many before and since let public necessity run off into the realm of institutional greed, and much like the progressive climate of today, the colonial producers found themselves targets of deliberately punitive policies because they were there and had things to take.

[The Lone Alliance]

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.

The Abolitionist movements in the British Empire were able to use the fact that the American Revolution removed the largest wealthy economic class that would have opposed the end of slavery.

The idea that the British Empire would have followed the same path to ending slavery without the American Revolution fails to face up to the fact that the Southern Colony plantation owners would have used their political and economic power to influence the British government much like they influenced the American government. Because that's what rich people do.

If America hadn't seceded then the British Empire would be dealing with the same problem the US did in it's opposition of the ending of slavery, that a very powerful economic bloc would have used their money and political power to oppose it.

It was far easier for the British to end slavery after the largest faction of slavers in the Empire fucked off to join the rebels.

[Salus Maior]

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's not quite true. The original complaints of the colonies were rooted in the overturning and intervention in local legislatures and, of course, taxation without representation.

Slavery, however, became a hot button issue when the war already began as the British offered freedom to slaves in exchange for providing their manpower to the British army. That got a lot of the fence-sitting slave-owners in the South to support independence, but again the war for independence was not fought over preserving slavery. And even if the war of independence was lost, I doubt the British would have abolished slavery wholesale in the South when they didn't even do that in their Caribbean colonies when they abolished slavery in Britain proper.

[Stellar Colonies]

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's not quite true. The original complaints of the colonies were rooted in the overturning and intervention in local legislatures and, of course, taxation without representation.

Slavery, however, became a hot button issue when the war already began as the British offered freedom to slaves in exchange for providing their manpower to the British army. That got a lot of the fence-sitting slave-owners in the South to support independence, but again the war for independence was not fought over preserving slavery. And even if the war of independence was lost, I doubt the British would have abolished slavery wholesale in the South when they didn't even do that in their Caribbean colonies when they abolished slavery in Britain proper.

If they still tried or made any moves in that direction, it's possible there would've been a conflict in the South during the 19th century which would be a weird mixture of the American Revolution and Civil War.

[Risottia]

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 British government is a republic de facto and the monarch as head of State has less power than a President of the Republic in a parliamentary republic.

[Vavlar]

Would Central Europe be better off under Nazi rule? Would former Warsaw Pact states be better off under Soviet rule again?

[Thomasi]

Would Central Europe be better off under Nazi rule? Would former Warsaw Pact states be better off under Soviet rule again?

Except in the case of the British, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand who were the other settler colonies who's nations got independance peacefully and stayed with the crowns, are more free, have a longer life expectancy, higher standard of living, and lower crime rate than the US.

So it is basically confirmed that if we took the same path we would have been better off.

[Salus Maior]

Would Central Europe be better off under Nazi rule? Would former Warsaw Pact states be better off under Soviet rule again?

Er...While I wouldn't say the later British rule over America was very good, it's not comparable to either of those.

[The New Rio Grande]

I don’t think they would. I think it’s better that they declared independence. I mean I don’t think anybody wants to speak British English.

[Rusozak]

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

An aimless man knows no Lordship.

I prefer for the qualifications of leadership to not be based on who their father was or how funny their hat is, thanks.

[Thomasi]

An aimless man knows no Lordship.

I prefer for the qualifications of leadership to not be based on who their father was or how funny their hat is, thanks.

Its worth noting that the former colonies who kept the monarchy are all stable democracies. The former colonies that removed the queen (except the island that just removed it a year or so ago) are all unstable democracies, even the US to an extent.

[Hyidai]

No.