What if the American Revolution Never Happened
video description
Date: 2022-07-15
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
David
1: 20 Good grief this video barely gets started before making some very inaccurate statements concerning the general state of governance in the colonies and in Britain itself. As things stood in 1770, most colonists had better representation in the colonial assemblies than did their brethren in Britain as there really wasn't anything akin to the colonial assemblies back in Britain since Parliament wasn't nearly as broadly representative. In essence, the colonies had got too far ahead of the homeland in terms of representation and governance. At the same time, their brethren in Britain were also paying for their defence, so it was hardly an unreasonable proposition in general for the colonists to pay up. This aspect of the colonists' free riding naturally enough is seldom acknowledged by modern Americans.
That there is the fundamental problem facing the Empire: the colonists are getting a free ride and don't want to pay up while they have a locally more representative system than the people who actually are paying for them. It's a fundamentally untenable situation.
Additionally, none of this had much to do with George III; the driving force for taxing the colonies was the British Government itself, supported by Parliament. The writings of many on both sides of the Atlantic in the years leading up to the Revolution make it pretty clear that this was primarily an argument between Colonial elites and the British government, not an egomaniacal King George III trying to stamp down his rule. A number of colonists even made appeals to the King to overrule Parliament.
Finally, your solution of a Colonial Parliament doesn't actually solve that fundamental problem of colonial free riding if they can vote to veto paying for their own defence, whereas creating an Imperial Assembly probably would as the colonies would still be outvoted well into the 19th century by which time everyone would have got used to the idea that everyone in the Empire pays for its defence.
reply
1: 20 Good grief this video barely gets started before making some very inaccurate statements concerning the general state of governance in the colonies and in Britain itself. As things stood in 1770, most colonists had better representation in the colonial assemblies than did their brethren in Britain as there really wasn't anything akin to the colonial assemblies back in Britain since Parliament wasn't nearly as broadly representative. In essence, the colonies had got too far ahead of the homeland in terms of representation and governance. At the same time, their brethren in Britain were also paying for their defence, so it was hardly an unreasonable proposition in general for the colonists to pay up. This aspect of the colonists' free riding naturally enough is seldom acknowledged by modern Americans.
That there is the fundamental problem facing the Empire: the colonists are getting a free ride and don't want to pay up while they have a locally more representative system than the people who actually are paying for them. It's a fundamentally untenable situation.
Additionally, none of this had much to do with George III; the driving force for taxing the colonies was the British Government itself, supported by Parliament. The writings of many on both sides of the Atlantic in the years leading up to the Revolution make it pretty clear that this was primarily an argument between Colonial elites and the British government, not an egomaniacal King George III trying to stamp down his rule. A number of colonists even made appeals to the King to overrule Parliament.
Finally, your solution of a Colonial Parliament doesn't actually solve that fundamental problem of colonial free riding if they can vote to veto paying for their own defence, whereas creating an Imperial Assembly probably would as the colonies would still be outvoted well into the 19th century by which time everyone would have got used to the idea that everyone in the Empire pays for its defence.
reply
YouTube
Pre video my guess.
Much of the south and west coast would be Spanish and look a lot like modern day Mexico or South America. Not quite a superpower, but nice little area to live with strong Spanish culture.
East coast would be strongly British similar to Canada today. I doubt they would expand much further than they did at the time one because of no manifest destiny and 2 because of Spain and France. They would still bow down to the queen to this day.
I think the Great Lakes and Mississippi would be mostly French controlled. The British might have fought a war or bought the land from France, but I can imagine this area being mostly French similar to Quebec today.
The final one and the most interesting imo would be the Native American culture. Without manifest destiny I doubt Native American culture is completely wiped out like it is under irl America. I can imagine most of the Rocky Mountains area would have strong Native American culture. Who knows how this would look with them being able to trade and learn from the Spanish French and British cultures around them.
I would guess that the us would be 3 different countries. 1 being Canada which would be modern day east coast Canada plus the original 13 states. 2 would be French going up the Mississippi and around the Great Lakes. 3 being Spanish that would hold most of the islands, Florida and Deep South, then pretty much the entire west coast alll the way to Texas. The native Americans would probably live in the French country.
reply
Pre video my guess.
Much of the south and west coast would be Spanish and look a lot like modern day Mexico or South America. Not quite a superpower, but nice little area to live with strong Spanish culture.
East coast would be strongly British similar to Canada today. I doubt they would expand much further than they did at the time one because of no manifest destiny and 2 because of Spain and France. They would still bow down to the queen to this day.
I think the Great Lakes and Mississippi would be mostly French controlled. The British might have fought a war or bought the land from France, but I can imagine this area being mostly French similar to Quebec today.
The final one and the most interesting imo would be the Native American culture. Without manifest destiny I doubt Native American culture is completely wiped out like it is under irl America. I can imagine most of the Rocky Mountains area would have strong Native American culture. Who knows how this would look with them being able to trade and learn from the Spanish French and British cultures around them.
I would guess that the us would be 3 different countries. 1 being Canada which would be modern day east coast Canada plus the original 13 states. 2 would be French going up the Mississippi and around the Great Lakes. 3 being Spanish that would hold most of the islands, Florida and Deep South, then pretty much the entire west coast alll the way to Texas. The native Americans would probably live in the French country.
reply
John
From U. K. Im busy at the moment writing a little local history book covering my home town of Rotherham Yorkshire during this period. There is an aspect of this conflict that is often overlooked. As this post explains Britain was a country long over due for either reform or revolution. The Patriot movement started as a Branch of the British Whig Party and were opposed by the Tory Party. This conflict spread to the colonies. Rotherham was Patriot. Local Politician and soldier Earl of Effingham, built a monument to the Boston Tea Party. Called Boston Castle it still dominates the town from a hill top. A few miles north a victory arch was built in 1783 at Parlington Hall. This to commemorate the American victory. After the war Lafayette wrote to Rotherham resident John Payne to thank him for the moral support during the conflict. Following Yorktown another local man Rockingham agreed to become Prime Minister only if he would be allowed to end the war. Tories were pushing to send another army. Two founding fathers Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine visited Rotherham. The point Im making is that the Revolution almost happened on both sides of the Atlantic. I would though disagree with American opinions on George111. He like our current Queen saw his role as protecting parliamentary democracy. This is why he stood in support of government ministers, unfortunately those ministers were Tory Hawks.
reply
From U. K. Im busy at the moment writing a little local history book covering my home town of Rotherham Yorkshire during this period. There is an aspect of this conflict that is often overlooked. As this post explains Britain was a country long over due for either reform or revolution. The Patriot movement started as a Branch of the British Whig Party and were opposed by the Tory Party. This conflict spread to the colonies. Rotherham was Patriot. Local Politician and soldier Earl of Effingham, built a monument to the Boston Tea Party. Called Boston Castle it still dominates the town from a hill top. A few miles north a victory arch was built in 1783 at Parlington Hall. This to commemorate the American victory. After the war Lafayette wrote to Rotherham resident John Payne to thank him for the moral support during the conflict. Following Yorktown another local man Rockingham agreed to become Prime Minister only if he would be allowed to end the war. Tories were pushing to send another army. Two founding fathers Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine visited Rotherham. The point Im making is that the Revolution almost happened on both sides of the Atlantic. I would though disagree with American opinions on George111. He like our current Queen saw his role as protecting parliamentary democracy. This is why he stood in support of government ministers, unfortunately those ministers were Tory Hawks.
reply
loshosorus
I don't understand the reasoning being why Germany would unite earlier. Without napoleon conquering Europe, dissolving the HRE, and creating national client states like the confederation of the rhine I see no reason why there would be a big push to unite the german states. Another thing to note is hanover is under personal union with GB until Victoria in 1837 and therefore would not be apart of any unified state like the germany built by bismark. I don't even see any reason why the HRE would start to become more centralized especially without a large external threat.
In regards to George III, he seems to get a very bad rap from you americans but he was an educated almost enlightened monarch that ruled through parliament. It was Lord North who repeatably took a hard line against the americans, especially with the revocation of the charter of mass. bay and the closure of the port of Boston. There were many in parliament who repeatably pushed for a more conciliatory approach to dealing with the issues in the americas.
reply
I don't understand the reasoning being why Germany would unite earlier. Without napoleon conquering Europe, dissolving the HRE, and creating national client states like the confederation of the rhine I see no reason why there would be a big push to unite the german states. Another thing to note is hanover is under personal union with GB until Victoria in 1837 and therefore would not be apart of any unified state like the germany built by bismark. I don't even see any reason why the HRE would start to become more centralized especially without a large external threat.
In regards to George III, he seems to get a very bad rap from you americans but he was an educated almost enlightened monarch that ruled through parliament. It was Lord North who repeatably took a hard line against the americans, especially with the revocation of the charter of mass. bay and the closure of the port of Boston. There were many in parliament who repeatably pushed for a more conciliatory approach to dealing with the issues in the americas.
reply
Tim
It probably would have ended up largely the same in my opinion. I don't think remaining a colony for a little longer (Canada became an independently governed dominion in 1867) really would have changed the US's ability to become a global superpower on its own. WW2 would have still happened and the US (or whatever it would have been called instead) would still have the capabiIties to flex its industrial might in that conflict. I Think any differences would be largely cosmetic. Different country name, maybe the queen would be on our money etc. Culturally, I think we would be very much the same. I mean I know a lot of Canadians have been to Canada a number of times and overall dont feel your average Canadian is culturally very different from your average American.
reply
It probably would have ended up largely the same in my opinion. I don't think remaining a colony for a little longer (Canada became an independently governed dominion in 1867) really would have changed the US's ability to become a global superpower on its own. WW2 would have still happened and the US (or whatever it would have been called instead) would still have the capabiIties to flex its industrial might in that conflict. I Think any differences would be largely cosmetic. Different country name, maybe the queen would be on our money etc. Culturally, I think we would be very much the same. I mean I know a lot of Canadians have been to Canada a number of times and overall dont feel your average Canadian is culturally very different from your average American.
reply
kev
America was costing Britain more money than it was getting out of it, it wouldn't been given independence sooner rather than later, Britain had more money from other countries within its empire,
Mad king George was the only one who wanted to keep America part of England, before the war the politicians wanted to break from America and when the war started the British public were against it, many had family, friends who had migrated to America, and they saw it as fighting against ourselves, the only thing that didn't make it a full on anti war regarding the British people was the emphasis on the French fighting against the British, so the French being Englands oldest enemy the ordinary British people didn't want to lose to the French.
reply
America was costing Britain more money than it was getting out of it, it wouldn't been given independence sooner rather than later, Britain had more money from other countries within its empire,
Mad king George was the only one who wanted to keep America part of England, before the war the politicians wanted to break from America and when the war started the British public were against it, many had family, friends who had migrated to America, and they saw it as fighting against ourselves, the only thing that didn't make it a full on anti war regarding the British people was the emphasis on the French fighting against the British, so the French being Englands oldest enemy the ordinary British people didn't want to lose to the French.
reply
William
Your depiction of George III is very incorrect. He didn't go insane until about 1808 or so. At this time, he was best educated monarch in British history before or since. He was also determined to rule through constitutional principles. Though he ha had great influence and some power, he would still not go against Parliament who passed most of the offending laws on its own. You're depiction of George III is he stereotypical and incorrect version Americans have been pushing for over two centuries. It's like taking the story of Washington and the Cherry Tree as real. The man lied all the time, specially to the American people to get them into the war. He started the French and Indian War, and didn't want to pay for it.
reply
Your depiction of George III is very incorrect. He didn't go insane until about 1808 or so. At this time, he was best educated monarch in British history before or since. He was also determined to rule through constitutional principles. Though he ha had great influence and some power, he would still not go against Parliament who passed most of the offending laws on its own. You're depiction of George III is he stereotypical and incorrect version Americans have been pushing for over two centuries. It's like taking the story of Washington and the Cherry Tree as real. The man lied all the time, specially to the American people to get them into the war. He started the French and Indian War, and didn't want to pay for it.
reply
Glicksman1
The perceived problem with American compromise with the Crown was that our founders well-understood that what could be granted could later be withdrawn. Thus, the Colonies would always be beholding to the good will and mercy of whatever British Monarch/government was in power at any time in the future. Nations and cultures cannot be built on such weak and shaky foundations.
The only sure, but highly risky way to liberty was revolution and permanent political separation. There was a short time, before blood was spilled, when a compromise might have prevented such, but those were not times when hereditary Monarchs compromised with mere commoners.
reply
The perceived problem with American compromise with the Crown was that our founders well-understood that what could be granted could later be withdrawn. Thus, the Colonies would always be beholding to the good will and mercy of whatever British Monarch/government was in power at any time in the future. Nations and cultures cannot be built on such weak and shaky foundations.
The only sure, but highly risky way to liberty was revolution and permanent political separation. There was a short time, before blood was spilled, when a compromise might have prevented such, but those were not times when hereditary Monarchs compromised with mere commoners.
reply
Earl
Couple of corrections: Ireland & Scotland did not have a Parliament. The English would ride thru Ireland & kill 1/3 of their population & take another as slaves to be used in their Colonies all over the globe. The Scott's & the Irish finally joined forces to fight the English, but lost the Battle of Culloden 1746. This caused a huge migration to tTe 13 Colonies. The Colonist did NOT want to just go kill Native Indian's. The English, paid the the Indian's to attack the Colonist & later the American's in 1814-1815. The Colonist/American's were after freedom and farm land.
reply
Couple of corrections: Ireland & Scotland did not have a Parliament. The English would ride thru Ireland & kill 1/3 of their population & take another as slaves to be used in their Colonies all over the globe. The Scott's & the Irish finally joined forces to fight the English, but lost the Battle of Culloden 1746. This caused a huge migration to tTe 13 Colonies. The Colonist did NOT want to just go kill Native Indian's. The English, paid the the Indian's to attack the Colonist & later the American's in 1814-1815. The Colonist/American's were after freedom and farm land.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
