What if America lost the War Of Independence

[Nimzonia]

It would have happened somewhere else within a few decades anyway. The preconditions still existed, and the USA wasn't even the first republic anyway. It's rather lacking in vision to assume that the way something happened in history was the only way it could possibly happen.

I don't think you understand the ramifications of the American Revolution. This was the first successful large-scale violent rebellion to replace a monarchy with a republic. That sets a precedent that gives people a model to work off of and aspire to. The French were hesitant to support us in large part because the domestic issues in France were also ripe for revolutionary activity and the French weren't sure if it was a good idea to inspire home-grown revolutionaries to do at home what Americans were doing in the Colonies. Many French who ended up participating in the American Revolution, such as LaFayette, used it as an example of what could be accomplished in France and it wasn't hard to point at the American Revolution as an example to those in doubt and say "If the Americans can do it, so can we!" and that same sentiment would be carried over into the Revolutions of 1848 - which were in turn inspired by the success of both the American and French Revolutions - and again in 1905 and 1917 inspired by the same Revolutions that occurred in the previous century, as well as similar revolutionary activity in the 1800s and 1900s. The American Revolution absolutely set a precedent and served as an example of success for those working towards establishing liberal democracies throughout the West and elsewhere from Bolívar to the Young Turks to Xinhai. It's much easier to get people on board with your ideals when you have successful examples to point at and prove it works. The American Revolution nearly crumbled several times quite specifically because there wasn't as much popular support for it as the revolutions which came later. Quite honestly without foreign (but especially French) support we wouldn't have become an independent country at all.

Why do you assume that no other revolution could have succeeded without the American revolution as inspiration? If a prior example was needed to inspire a revolution, then the American revolution wouldn't have succeeded either, unless you believe that only Americans can generate a successful revolution by themselves. Obviously the later revolutions in our own history ended up being inspired by the American Revolution, because it happened in our history. If it didn't happen, revolutionaries elsewhere would have motivated themselves some other way, because their resistance against tyranny was still righteous. People did not actually need Americans to show them what to do, and I find it odd to hear such American exceptionalism coming from someone of your professed political views.

This is assuming that if the American Revolution didn't pop off in 1775 but instead waited until 1875 that it would have been draped in the ideals of Fourier/Owens/Marx/Engels instead of the Founding Fathers. It also assumes that the conditions that forced the American Revolution to occur were either still present a hundred years later or had worsened without the public becoming upset over it. It also assumes that the 13 Colonies wouldn't receive independence/autonomy for some other reason. Among many other things.

Yes, it would've been amazing if America had been founded on a Socialist Revolution instead of a Liberal one but entertaining the thought is rather pointless and not what this thread is really about.

It's a possibility, not an assumption. If the American Revolution had failed, then the next 100 years of history would diverge so far from ours that the world would be unrecognisable and almost any possibility can be entertained. If the 1770s revolution had been suppressed, later revolutions may have still occurred due to the underlying unrest persisting, but with different ideals due to occurring in a different cultural era. Or maybe they wouldn't. Or maybe Karl Marx would have been kicked in the head by a horse at the age of six due to the butterfly effect and revolutionary socialism never happened at all.

If you find this speculation pointless, then I wonder why you felt it necessary to participate in this thread at all, since there is nothing here but pointless speculation.

[Kalivyah]

The world would almost certainly be a better place

I would have never been born because I refuse to live in a world where the British directly rule over me.

That's...not how that works.

Provide a source explaining how that's not how it works.

[HISPIDA]

probably would've merged with canada or something. definitely higher native populations, for one, although in all likelihood they wouldn't be terribly larger. a second american revolution may be attempted over emancipation in the 1830's, although is slave owners are compensated, probably not.

the biggest butterflies, though, is a lack of major british attempts of colonization in india and australia. IIRC, india was primarily colonized for its cotton and textile production which was lost from the south, and australia was primarily colonized for a new penal colony which was lost from the south.

india would probably be under the purview of britain still, but more like a loose confederation of colonies and, a bit more likely, nominally under a mughal emperor; similar to china. as for australia... maybe dutch?

a french revolution of still kind probably happens, although likely isn't as radical (although, in full honesty, it's possible it might be more radical, which is saying something). the rise of nationalism is inevitable with the rise of the industrial revolution and modern capitalism, which isn't butterflied away by america staying under british rule, but without the napoleonic wars (which, might i stress, could still happen) we wouldn't see the napoleonic code and acceptance of russia's military dominance either takes a much longer time or never happens without napoleon getting crushed in russia. notably, with the lack of napoleon, marx might not even be born without a prussian crackdown in the rhine --- and if he is, without napoleon it's possible he and his father simply remain lawyers in the electorate of trier.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

... IIRC, india was primarily colonized for its cotton and textile production which was lost from the south...

I seem to remember we colonised India because we were looking for markets for our woollen products. Strangely the Indians didn't fancy wrapping up in lovely warm woolly clothes...

[Sordhau]

I don't think you understand the ramifications of the American Revolution. This was the first successful large-scale violent rebellion to replace a monarchy with a republic. That sets a precedent that gives people a model to work off of and aspire to. The French were hesitant to support us in large part because the domestic issues in France were also ripe for revolutionary activity and the French weren't sure if it was a good idea to inspire home-grown revolutionaries to do at home what Americans were doing in the Colonies. Many French who ended up participating in the American Revolution, such as LaFayette, used it as an example of what could be accomplished in France and it wasn't hard to point at the American Revolution as an example to those in doubt and say "If the Americans can do it, so can we!" and that same sentiment would be carried over into the Revolutions of 1848 - which were in turn inspired by the success of both the American and French Revolutions - and again in 1905 and 1917 inspired by the same Revolutions that occurred in the previous century, as well as similar revolutionary activity in the 1800s and 1900s. The American Revolution absolutely set a precedent and served as an example of success for those working towards establishing liberal democracies throughout the West and elsewhere from Bolívar to the Young Turks to Xinhai. It's much easier to get people on board with your ideals when you have successful examples to point at and prove it works. The American Revolution nearly crumbled several times quite specifically because there wasn't as much popular support for it as the revolutions which came later. Quite honestly without foreign (but especially French) support we wouldn't have become an independent country at all.

Why do you assume that no other revolution could have succeeded without the American revolution as inspiration? If a prior example was needed to inspire a revolution, then the American revolution wouldn't have succeeded either, unless you believe that only Americans can generate a successful revolution by themselves. Obviously the later revolutions in our own history ended up being inspired by the American Revolution, because it happened in our history. If it didn't happen, revolutionaries elsewhere would have motivated themselves some other way, because their resistance against tyranny was still righteous. People did not actually need Americans to show them what to do, and I find it odd to hear such American exceptionalism coming from someone of your professed political views.

It's not that only Americans could have done it, it's that it's occurrence and success provides precedence which motivates. I should clarify when I say the other revolutions don't happen that what I mean is they don't happen as they did historically; if they did occur at all they would likely have ended up being radically different. We're not theorizing a world where the American Revolution *didn't* happen but one where it *did* and the Patriots lost. That has profound ramifications for future revolutions, especially ones founded on the same Liberal values as the American one.

[Kalivyah]

okay well enough shitposting and down to what i think would happen

- canada wouldn't have merged with the rest of america. no Way no how. reason: quebec
- quebec probably would be pretty fucking massive containing all that... you know.......... the.... the rust belt states. ohio and stuff.
- pretty sure america would have been divided between northern and southern dominions since truth be told there were major cultural and economic differences
- africa, australia (and subsequently new zealand) would be for the most part free of british terror
- the americans would sacrifice themselves so most of the rest of the would-be-british-colonies of the world don't have to suffer
- they go down in history as noble heroes before a nuclear war between the united teangdom of great earland, greyland and northern breakfasingham and the imperial state of the tsardom of almighty russia destroys the world.
- after the smoke clears the dutch control everything

[Nimzonia]

It's not that only Americans could have done it, it's that it's occurrence and success provides precedence which motivates.

If America hadn't been the first to succeed, someone else probably would, and subsequent revolutions would have been motivated by that instead. In any case, the failure of the original American Revolution wouldn't necessarily even mean the Americans wouldn't try again. The Jacobites tried four or five times before that was finally quashed.

I should clarify when I say the other revolutions don't happen that what I mean is they don't happen as they did historically; if they did occur at all they would likely have ended up being radically different.

That goes without saying. Once you change anything at all, then nothing after that point happens as it did historically. It's almost impossible to say with any certainty what would be happening more than 20 years after you change history, never mind 200. I doubt people living in a world where, for example, Napoleon successfully invaded Russia and ruled all of Europe until he died, could foresee an alternate history that resulted in the cold war.

[Erablegensstan]

The world would probably be better

[Ayytaly]

Am I the only one who finds the U.S. gatekeeping of the term "America(n)" annoying? It's not like the 13 colonies were the only part of British America. Belize, Jamaica and Guyana say hi.

[Diarcesia]

The failure of Washington's Rebellion topples the first domino of repercussions that will eventually lead to this.

[Existential Cats]

Am I the only one who finds the U.S. gatekeeping of the term "America(n)" annoying? It's not like the 13 colonies were the only part of British America. Belize, Jamaica and Guyana say hi.

I mainly hear that from people from South and Central America, but it's because America, to them, should refer to the whole New World.

[Prima Scriptura]

I believe that we would have gotten home rule at least 50 years after the war.

[Ethel mermania]

Am I the only one who finds the U.S. gatekeeping of the term "America(n)" annoying? It's not like the 13 colonies were the only part of British America. Belize, Jamaica and Guyana say hi.

I got reamed for calling my self from America in Argentina

[Ayytaly]

Am I the only one who finds the U.S. gatekeeping of the term "America(n)" annoying? It's not like the 13 colonies were the only part of British America. Belize, Jamaica and Guyana say hi.

I got reamed for calling my self from America in Argentina

¡Sos un pelotudo!

(Mom's Argentine)

[Platoon of Peace]

okay well enough shitposting and down to what i think would happen

- canada wouldn't have merged with the rest of america. no Way no how. reason: quebec
- quebec probably would be pretty fucking massive containing all that... you know.......... the.... the rust belt states. ohio and stuff.
- pretty sure america would have been divided between northern and southern dominions since truth be told there were major cultural and economic differences
- africa, australia (and subsequently new zealand) would be for the most part free of british terror
- the americans would sacrifice themselves so most of the rest of the would-be-british-colonies of the world don't have to suffer
- they go down in history as noble heroes before a nuclear war between the united teangdom of great earland, greyland and northern breakfasingham and the imperial state of the tsardom of almighty russia destroys the world.
- after the smoke clears the dutch control everything

I'm glad you stopped shitposting to develop this answer.

[The Orwell Society]

If the US had lost the Revolutionary War, and Great Britain succeeded in keeping their colony, the US would look very different today. The British Empire may be far stronger, as America is rich with resources that Britain didn't quite use to their advantage.

[Erablegensstan]

I am more curious about what would happen to Washington, Franklin, Jefferson etc. Chances are that they would go into exile in a friendly state such as France if they were not caught by the British.

[Stellar Colonies]

Am I the only one who finds the U.S. gatekeeping of the term "America(n)" annoying? It's not like the 13 colonies were the only part of British America. Belize, Jamaica and Guyana say hi.

yes

(I think)

Fredonia was a lost opportunity though.

[Platoon of Peace]

Am I the only one who finds the U.S. gatekeeping of the term "America(n)" annoying? It's not like the 13 colonies were the only part of British America. Belize, Jamaica and Guyana say hi.

I can understand the frustration. But I guess he who comes up with the idea keeps it.

[Infected Mushroom]

They were opposed to it for the 13 colonies if I recall the textbook correctly. I don't know about in Canada (they've mostly won the lands from France so it's a different story).

Canada didn’t exist. It was all just British North America. Some North American Colonies sided with the British, some choose independence. If you think for a second the British would stop the genocide of natives that they actively encouraged then you are stating you know nothing.

The British would have cared more. They were in Ireland and parts of Africa and elsewhere for centuries and for the most part their respective peoples have not been genocided to the same degree Americans have done to tribes in North America.

The British model is more about trade and understanding, while the 13 colonies were more strongly geared towards colonization, exploitation, military conquest and genocide.

[T Rex Horde]

I was wondering? What if America lost the Independence War?

What I think
America would still have its old British Flag untill 1960, when the British Empire collapsed. It would still have British Influence, also the War of 1812 wouldn't have happened, since America would have been a part of Britain. America could have got independence in 1960, It would be July 4th, 1960. British America would have been 62 years old. The pretitle of America would've been called The British Islands Of America. Also, America wouldn't have a president untill 1960, or 1969. By now Richard Nixon would have already started his first term.

Argue with me or not, America is technically still British.

By the 1840s historically, the U.S. had already surpassed the British Isles in population and by the 1870s had done so economically. If it remained in the British Empire, it would've become the American Empire in the long run. Most likely, however, the Americans would've revolted again in another generation or two as Britain was tied down in Europe and American home advantages continued to progress.

[Platoon of Peace]

Canada didn’t exist. It was all just British North America. Some North American Colonies sided with the British, some choose independence. If you think for a second the British would stop the genocide of natives that they actively encouraged then you are stating you know nothing.

The British would have cared more. They were in Ireland and parts of Africa and elsewhere for centuries and for the most part their respective peoples have not been genocided to the same degree Americans have done to tribes in North America.

The British model is more about trade and understanding, while the 13 colonies were more strongly geared towards colonization, exploitation, military conquest and genocide.

The British was absolutely not about trade and understanding, what are you talking about? They literally ran slave plantations in the Caribbean using natives.

And I feel like the term "genocide" is being used a little lightly. According to the UN, genocide is a "crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part". Can we say, beyond the benefit of the doubt, that was the US did was committed with the intent to destroy native Americans?

I would make the argument that the Trail of Tears was. But IDK about otherwise.

[Saint Kanye]

They'd be playing soccer and not gridiron

[T Rex Horde]

I'm sure that the South (at the very bare minimum) will definitely secede as soon as the Brits outlawed slavery in its entirety in 1833. Those that don't join the slavers will probably end up being vored into Canada (well, British North America), and I am very sure that Mexico will still keep what is now the American Southwest.

That's about as certain as it can get: I don't know whether Canada would be a superpower in that timeline or not, I don't know what happens with the South, I don't know how it will affect Canadian politics. I just doubt that New England would be anything but a collection of Canadian provinces.

Slavery wouldn't be outlawed in 1833, it would've been expanded into the Midwest and Middle Atlantic "Colonies" from 1790 to 1830. The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade might end in the 1830s, but the long term outlook of the institution is great in a scenario where the British have maintained control of the colonies.

[Jasumaa]

I feel like without america winning the revolution you really are only kicking the can further down the road. If the issues that caused the revolution aren’t dealt with, or even worse if the British double down, I think eventually you’re going to have another rebellion, and another. Each time blood is in the water or there is weakness you’d most likely have some upstart slave owner aristocrat attempting to bring about the rebellion. Especially if Britain still decides to crackdown on slavery that would only give them more reason to rebel. The next American Revolutionary War would be about slave owning aristocrats rebellion against so called imperialism.