[Oxymoron]

What would the world be like if Britain kept control over the 13 colonies. Would the US seperate from Britain peacefully down the road? Would Britain continue being a Hyperpower into the twentieth century?

[Nets]

We'd be Canada II. Although slavery in the south would likely die out far earlier.

[Thunderhawk]

Depends how Britain never "lost" those colonies.

If they were treated nicer, I suspect they would have stayed loyal and participated in future wars in North American. France would have lost Louisiana to Britain, North America would not have developed as much as it did, and Britain would remain probably remain a world power. Its empire would likely have continued to splinter into autonomous pieces though.


If the crown kept control of the 13 colonies because of brutal force, and France stayed on its course to revolution, I suspect there might have been common cause between the colonies and France (historical, just postponed). Napoleon's campaign would not have changed too much, except for in North America. Louisiana would be over run, but Spain would not have lost Mexico (no USA soldier to help them out on May 5th). Perhaps France would even offer parts of Lousiana or the regions around Florida to Spain as a bribe for more help and less resistance.

[LAz]

Oh, I think they would have split off at a later time if the first fight for independence failed.

[Thompson_NCL]

If the War of Independence had not occurred then there'd probably not have been a revolution in France, which would have drastically redrawn the map of Europe. Outside of Europe things would be rather similar to how they were in reality - Britain's Empire would not be that much bigger than it was because it would be too difficult to control directly.

Mot likely by the 1900's most of the Colonies would have achieved Dominion status and the Empire would have been in far better shape to face the 20th century.

I have always maintained that American "Independence" was the biggest setback the Anglo people have suffered in history.

[Manuel]

Perhaps France would even offer parts of Lousiana or the regions around Florida to Spain as a bribe for more help and less resistance.

In that case, why not simply not attack Spain to begin with, which is how France acquired the territory? If we assume that Napoleon's campaign continued as on real life, the subjugation of the Spanish crown and annexation of her territories would inur anger and wrath, and if France had the gall to try and offer them back their land in exchange for quiet obediance, you would see a general revolution in Iberia, which the British would exploit, and then use to march up to Waterloo...

[Andres]

If they were treated nicer, I suspect they would have stayed loyal and participated in future wars in North American. France would have lost Louisiana to Britain, North America would not have developed as much as it did, and Britain would remain probably remain a world power. Its empire would likely have continued to splinter into autonomous pieces though.

It might be my lack of historical knowledge, but it doesn't seem to me as if Britain had a lack of manpower or resources during the 19th century that would have been redressed if only they had maintained possession over the US. Nor does it seem to me that the process of dissolution would have been forestalled. If the empire would have continued to splinter into autonomous pieces, I don't see how they would have remained the primary (or among the primary) world power(s). It might be that if they had retained control up until the world wars, they could have overwhelmed Germany faster, but in that scenario, North America would have had to develop, in which case it might be inevitable that the US would attain independence. It was the fear of commercial success in the 13 colonies leading to an independence movement which prompted Britain to impose the large tariffs in the first place.

but Spain would not have lost Mexico (no USA soldier to help them out on May 5th).

If by May 5th you are referring to the battle of Puebla, that took place in 1862 (41 years after independence from Spain) and it was against the French who had sent an expedition after Juarez canceled the payment of foreign debt. The French returned the next year and occupied much of Mexico, installing Maximilian and spending the next few years chasing Juarez around. Since the US civil war did not end until 1865, US support materialized only towards the very end when the mexican republicans were already enjoying some victories.

If the War of Independence had not occurred then there'd probably not have been a revolution in France, which would have drastically redrawn the map of Europe.

You are going to need to justify this somewhat since it seems a pretty strong claim. The discontent of the general French population was not driven by an intercontinental political discourse.

[Thompson_NCL]

You are going to need to justify this somewhat since it seems a pretty strong claim. The discontent of the general French population was not driven by an intercontinental political discourse.

The French participation in the war in America nearly Bankrupt their already meager finances. Furthermore, the American victory was undoubtedly a major influence to those considering Revolution in France - if the Americans could throw off the shackles of oppression and defy the Ancien Regime, why couldn't a Frenchman?

So yes, not only did the war have a direct impact on the the French financial situation, but it also inspired the average Frenchman to believe they could defeat their Monarchy.

[Andres]

The French participation in the war in America nearly Bankrupt their already meager finances.

You still need to justify that the effect of this would not have been a more protracted, but still victorious, conflict. Furthermore, you also need to take more into account the fact that France had already been embroiled in a conflict with Britain and in other parts of Europe. Meaning, that whether the American revolution had taken place or not, it does not directly translate to France not making war expenses.

Furthermore, the American victory was undoubtedly a major influence to those considering Revolution in France - if the Americans could throw off the shackles of oppression and defy the Ancien Regime, why couldn't a Frenchman?

That it was an influence, I don't contend, what you need is to quantify the 'major influence' part of your statement. Specially taking into account the general discontent which did not require inspiration from across the Atlantic.

[Thunderhawk]

It might be my lack of historical knowledge, but it doesn't seem to me as if Britain had a lack of manpower or resources during the 19th century that would have been redressed if only they had maintained possession over the US.

This was part of the best outcomes I was thinking of. If the colonies stayed loyal, I see them being a manpower source in later decades/centuries. Furthermore, Im not sure if WW1 would have actually happened at all. Even if Napoleon came and fell as he did historically, the European geopolitics of the 19th century would surely be different with a dominant Britain and no nice 3rd party state to buy and sell arms/equipmnent/etc to.

If by May 5th you are referring to the battle of Puebla, that took place in 1862 (41 years after independence from Spain) and it was against the French who had sent an expedition after Juarez canceled the payment of foreign debt. The French returned the next year and occupied much of Mexico, installing Maximilian and spending the next few years chasing Juarez around. Since the US civil war did not end until 1865, US support materialized only towards the very end when the mexican republicans were already enjoying some victories.

I was under the impression that Mexican freedom fighters (name?) were buying military supplies from US factions (South, groups of deserters, profiteers, etc.) and getting either direct or indirect aid from Britain (as the south did).

[Thompson_NCL]

You still need to justify that the effect of this would not have been a more protracted, but still victorious, conflict. Furthermore, you also need to take more into account the fact that France had already been embroiled in a conflict with Britain and in other parts of Europe. Meaning, that whether the American revolution had taken place or not, it does not directly translate to France not making war expenses.

1/3rd of the French National Debt at this point was a consequence of the French participation in the War of Independence. I can give you the specific figures if you like.

So yes, I believe that had the economic situation in France had been 1/3rd better off, and the 'Rebels' were smashed in America by the forces of Ancien Regimé (British Army) then Revolution was not inevitable.

But this is all a guessing game really - so in depth argument becomes somewhat pointless.

[Andres]

I was under the impression that Mexican freedom fighters (name?) were buying military supplies from US factions (South, groups of deserters, profiteers, etc.) and getting either direct or indirect aid from Britain (as the south did).

In the war of independence (1810-1821), I doubt american involvement was pronounced since the US was not that powerful at the time, and it itself was involved in a war with Britain from 1812 to 1815. Aside from this, the war of independence was mostly a war of attrition.

As for the war with France (40 years later), I am unsure how much support came from factions during the civil war, but it couldn't have been much since most of the resources would have been channeled towards their own conflict. After the war, there was a more substantial procurement of arms, but by that time the balance of the conflict had already changed, and while the US put troops on the border and made threatening gestures, the retreat of the French troops was probably more due to the rise of Bismarck in Germany than to this gesture.

Furthermore, Im not sure if WW1 would have actually happened at all. Even if Napoleon came and fell as he did historically, the European geopolitics of the 19th century would surely be different with a dominant Britain and no nice 3rd party state to buy and sell arms/equipmnent/etc to.

But even with a vastly larger empire compared to Germany, it does not appear to have cowed Germany much in the run-up to WWI. I am unsure what the real effect would be.

[Thompson_NCL]

Britain was a maritime power, Germany knew it could dominate mainland Europe - so I don't think a stronger Britain would necessarily mean no WWI. But without a Napoleon in the 19th century I think the prospects of a world war on those terms seems unlikely.

[Andres]

So yes, I believe that had the economic situation in France had been 1/3rd better off, and the 'Rebels' were smashed in America by the forces of Ancien Regimé (British Army) then Revolution was not inevitable.

Again, the French not participating in the American revolution does not translate into the French not making any expense in their conflict with Britain. Furthermore, you still have to show that even with the finances in a better state this would not have translated into a more protracted conflict, with the rebels victorious nevertheless, but in an actual failure of the Revolution. The salt tax administration, the low standard of living of the peasants, the excesses of the aristocracy, all would not become tolerable simply because the state has better finances.