Thread: Was the armed American Revolution necessary?

Would the USA be any less free? Would independence have happened anyway? Are we better off for having engaged in the armed conflict? Would we have benefited from being colonial a few more decades? Would our grammar be better, like Canada?

Originally Posted by Davocrat

Would the USA be any less free? Would independence have happened anyway? Are we better off for having engaged in the armed conflict? Would we have benefited from being colonial a few more decades? Would our grammar be better, like Canada?

Would've happened anyway; longer colonialism probably would have helped; economy was better until the early 1800s.

Originally Posted by Sinopec

Would've happened anyway; longer colonialism probably would have helped; economy was better until the early 1800s.

I think the majority of colonial citizens opposed the revolution, if my sources are correct.

Originally Posted by Davocrat

I think the majority of colonial citizens opposed the revolution, if my sources are correct.

Indeed they did. A small minority led the country in whatever fashion they wanted with disregard of the people... sounds like a similar battle-cry.

Originally Posted by Sinopec

Would've happened anyway; longer colonialism probably would have helped; economy was better until the early 1800s.

America would have continued to depend solely on cash crops late into the 19th century, resulting in less innovation, meaning guys like Edison and the great industrialists that came before him may never have existed. It's also likely we would have been stuck as a pawn in wars against France and Spain as we had been during colonial times, which could have halted western expansion, especially into the far west states.

Would've happened anyway; longer colonialism probably would have helped;

Sounds good but there's a major oversight in your logic; had we remained a willing colony of Britain, we would have become involved in the Napoleonic Wars, and Napoleon never would have sold us the Louisiana territory. American expansion West provided the impetus for our industrialization in the 19th century which allowed our subsequent rise to prominence in the 20th century. Without American ownership of the territory, if independence ever happened within the same period of time that it did (and I agree it probably would have happened eventually) then western expansion would have been much more chaotic and it is completely unknowable if issues like new slave and free states which triggered the Civil War would have been present. The Civil War was necessary to bring about the end of slavery, it could not be resolved diplomatically... so who is to say when, if ever, the slaves would have been freed?

That's just one of countless unanswerable questions, and the answers would only become known if history had played out that way.

Originally Posted by Ferris

America would have continued to depend solely on cash crops late into the 19th century, resulting in less innovation, meaning guys like Edison and the great industrialists that came before him may never have existed. It's also likely we would have been stuck as a pawn in wars against France and Spain as we had been during colonial times, which could have halted western expansion, especially into the far west states.

I think the biggest difference would've been on westward expansion. Instead of one country gobbling up territory all the way to the Pacific Ocean, most likely new "colonies" would've been established through that area. It could've ended up with North America looking much like Europe, Africa, or Central America in terms of being populated with multiple smaller countries.

Originally Posted by Singularity

Sounds good but there's a major oversight in your logic; had we remained a willing colony of Britain, we would have become involved in the Napoleonic Wars, and Napoleon never would have sold us the Louisiana territory. American expansion West provided the impetus for our industrialization in the 19th century which allowed our subsequent rise to prominence in the 20th century. Without American ownership of the territory, if independence ever happened within the same period of time that it did (and I agree it probably would have happened eventually) then western expansion would have been much more chaotic and it is completely unknowable if issues like new slave and free states which triggered the Civil War would have been present. The Civil War was necessary to bring about the end of slavery, it could not be resolved diplomatically... so who is to say when, if ever, the slaves would have been freed?

That's just one of countless unanswerable questions, and the answers would only become known if history had played out that way.

You make a lot of good points, but didn't England abolish slavery long before 1863?

Originally Posted by boontito

I think the biggest difference would've been on westward expansion. Instead of one country gobbling up territory all the way to the Pacific Ocean, most likely new "colonies" would've been established through that area. It could've ended up with North America looking much like Europe, Africa, or Central America in terms of being populated with multiple smaller countries.

Hey, wouldn't it be fun to come up with names for those countries? </inside joke>

Originally Posted by Davocrat

I think the majority of colonial citizens opposed the revolution, if my sources are correct.

You talked to them?

The American Revolution was a key factor in changing Britain's destiny. Speculating on what would have happened if we hadn't revolted is fun, but there's no way of proving it. Saying Canada or any other British colony such as India would have turned out exactly the same if we hadn't revolted is very unlikely because of the dynamics involved.