Is the average Brit better off that the US won the US Revolutionary War?

[LarryBird]

I am particularly interested in how the British feel. If you are giving your answer, I think it would help if you include your nationality.

[lovelomsak]

Maybe.If Britain would have won they could have held back US development just like they did Canada and Us wouldnot be such a big power for Britain to deal with. I am Canadian.

[pgrahmm]

Not sure that the US would have made as much progress as it has if it were under British rule....Somewhat akin to Canada....

With much vaster natural resources it would have been the economic engine that drove the empire but it would have been a slave/master relationship with no real reward for intiative and advancement.....It would have propped up England toward being a super power without ever becoming one itself....

As an American I see both countries with a lot of problems.....But Britain has been mess for a lot longer........

It would have been better for the Empire but ultimately worse for the world......

[piersbeckett]

As N. America is such a huge area and the American war of Independence such a long and complicated war involving groups other than patriots and Brits and fought so long ago now, I think that the question should have been does the average Brit or anyone else for that matter consider that the outcome was inevitable i.e. world domination was inevitably going to be denied the Brits, the French, the Spanish or any other nation or ideology that went for it or, indeed, is going for it now.

[AyG]

Of course we're better off without America. That's why in England each year we celebrate Thanksgiving... on 4th July.

[pgrahmm]

In reality Britain never would have held it.....

Spain was carving up the southwest

Russia had settlements on the northwest coastal area

France was looking to gain ground in the south

The Brits might have kept part of the east coast

Only one of the above had any success holding onto it's territories - but they along with others wanted to carve up the world

But at that time there wasn't one nation/centralized government that had the power to control the entire area

It was either destined to be carved up or independent

[BuaBS]

The sad part is that the real owners ( the native Indians ) , didn't have advanced weapons to defend THEIR continent against <deleted> invaders from Europe.

[timbothaivisa]

There's no way to predict what the consequences would have been, for a start, the British Empire only really began in earnest once the American colonies were lost. It enabled resources to be focussed on the more profitable (at the time) prospects of India and Africa, and led to the conquest of Australia. WIthout the resulting trade income & and commitment to naval supremacy that this necessitated, the empire may have proved to be a shadow of how it actually turned out.

There are a myriad of other knock-ons too, would Britain have moved so decisively against the slave trade with the American lobby still on-board? It seems doubtful.

One thing seems certain however, without the USA making designs on British hegemony in the fall-out of the 2nd World War, Empire would not have been surrendered in return for dollar aid (France got grants rather than loans by comparison). This would have meant that overt militaristic colonialism may never have fallen out of fashion.

ps. I am a dual US/British citizen

[CharlieH]

11) You will not post slurs, degrading or overly negative comments directed towards Thailand, specific locations, Thai institutions such as the judicial or law enforcement system, Thai culture, Thai people or any other group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

[Soutpeel]

If the US had stayed British, the Kardashians would have a British passports.. ..so there's a direct benefit of the revolutionary war

If the US had stayed British on suspects the population would know the difference between Taiwan and Thailand

If the US had stayed British you might have real beer these days not some weak a p*ss facsimile of the real thing

If the US had stayed British, Canada would not exist one suspects except for that froggie bit of Canada

[lostoday]

The sad part is that the real owners ( the native Indians ) , didn't have advanced weapons to defend THEIR continent against <deleted> invaders from Europe.

Do you know who the Indians stole the land from? Ha ha ho ho. Thought not.

[slipperylobster]

They do seem to have healthier teeth...albeit a tad large.

All those musket balls must have knocked out the bad ones.

There was some confusion when they finally surrendered..

we could not make out what they were saying.

Of course..they never recovered fully from the Battle of Hastings,

when the french took over their government and changed their language.

(i am from holland...lol)

Edited August 28, 2015 by slipperylobster

[elgordo38]

Maybe.If Britain would have won they could have held back US development just like they did Canada and Us wouldnot be such a big power for Britain to deal with. I am Canadian.

Yes burning down the white house did leave our mark on the USA. Lets leave history alone I did not want to speak German and in the future might be forced to speak Chinese.

[StreetCowboy]

I thought it was the Colonial Brits that won the war, and subsequently set up the USA. Would a more sensible question be "what if the American War of independence had been won by Johnny Foreigners?"

Imagine if Los Estados Unidos Mexicos had got their independence first.

[elgordo38]

I thought it was the Colonial Brits that won the war, and subsequently set up the USA. Would a more sensible question be "what if the American War of independence had been won by Johnny Foreigners?"

Imagine if Los Estados Unidos Mexicos had got their independence first.

The American/Mexican war was simple. Americans saw the Mexicans squabbling among themselves and were ripe for the pickings. Pancho Villa and a bunch of other banditos were shooting the place up. All the Americans had to do was land at Vera Cruz and march on Mexico city and it was game over. A divided house falls

[StreetCowboy]

I thought it was the Colonial Brits that won the war, and subsequently set up the USA. Would a more sensible question be "what if the American War of independence had been won by Johnny Foreigners?"

Imagine if Los Estados Unidos Mexicos had got their independence first.

The American/Mexican war was simple. Americans saw the Mexicans squabbling among themselves and were ripe for the pickings. Pancho Villa and a bunch of other banditos were shooting the place up. All the Americans had to do was land at Vera Cruz and march on Mexico city and it was game over. A divided house falls

But imagine if Los Mexicanos had had a hundred and fifty years to get their house in order, if the Northern states were still under colonial rule ...

The USA is lucky that the wealthy British colonists of 1776 were allowed to declare UDI when they did

[lostoday]

I thought it was the Colonial Brits that won the war, and subsequently set up the USA. Would a more sensible question be "what if the American War of independence had been won by Johnny Foreigners?"

Imagine if Los Estados Unidos Mexicos had got their independence first.

The American/Mexican war was simple. Americans saw the Mexicans squabbling among themselves and were ripe for the pickings. Pancho Villa and a bunch of other banditos were shooting the place up. All the Americans had to do was land at Vera Cruz and march on Mexico city and it was game over. A divided house falls

But imagine if Los Mexicanos had had a hundred and fifty years to get their house in order, if the Northern states were still under colonial rule ...

The USA is lucky that the wealthy British colonists of 1776 were allowed to declare UDI when they did

What is UDI?

[StreetCowboy]

I thought it was the Colonial Brits that won the war, and subsequently set up the USA. Would a more sensible question be "what if the American War of independence had been won by Johnny Foreigners?"

Imagine if Los Estados Unidos Mexicos had got their independence first.

The American/Mexican war was simple. Americans saw the Mexicans squabbling among themselves and were ripe for the pickings. Pancho Villa and a bunch of other banditos were shooting the place up. All the Americans had to do was land at Vera Cruz and march on Mexico city and it was game over. A divided house falls

But imagine if Los Mexicanos had had a hundred and fifty years to get their house in order, if the Northern states were still under colonial rule ...

The USA is lucky that the wealthy British colonists of 1776 were allowed to declare UDI when they did

What is UDI?

unilateral declaration of independence

[lostoday]

I thought it was the Colonial Brits that won the war, and subsequently set up the USA. Would a more sensible question be "what if the American War of independence had been won by Johnny Foreigners?"

Imagine if Los Estados Unidos Mexicos had got their independence first.

The American/Mexican war was simple. Americans saw the Mexicans squabbling among themselves and were ripe for the pickings. Pancho Villa and a bunch of other banditos were shooting the place up. All the Americans had to do was land at Vera Cruz and march on Mexico city and it was game over. A divided house falls

But imagine if Los Mexicanos had had a hundred and fifty years to get their house in order, if the Northern states were still under colonial rule ...

The USA is lucky that the wealthy British colonists of 1776 were allowed to declare UDI when they did

The Treaty of Paris, signed in Paris by representatives of King George III of Great Britain and representatives of the United States of America on September 3, 1783, ended the American Revolutionary War.

This treaty, along with the separate peace treaties between Great Britain and the nations that supported the American cause: France, Spain and the Dutch Republic, are known collectively as the Peace of Paris. Its territorial provisions were "exceedingly generous" to the United States in terms of enlarged boundaries.

[timbothaivisa]

But imagine if Los Mexicanos had had a hundred and fifty years to get their house in order, if the Northern states were still under colonial rule ...

Well, they've had over 200 years of it now - imagine away!

[me313]

The English mercantile class never stopped profiting off the lucrative trade partnerships it had benefited from in trade with the Colonies preceding the War of Independence. The profit off the colonies that the Crown sorely missed after the Revolutionary War were the undue excises and taxes it had forced on the colonies, which eventually lead to the revolution. The purpose of some of the earliest Continental legislation was to resume commercial partnership with the English and retain the earlier trade routes, particularly that of the slave trade, the West Indies trade supply routes, along with all the shipping and cargo that had previously been entered to in partnership between the two. If you want further elaboration into the partnership between the Crown and that of the Colonies, I suggest reading the Declaration of Independence, which clearly spells out the wrongs the Crown had incurred upon the Colonies, and the vicious means of carrying out it's profit-engendering exploitation of the colonies.

If the average Brit had benefited or suffered loss due to the former Colonial relationship between the Crown of England and that of the Colonies before or after the Revolution, I doubt that profit margin has changed much in the 200+ years since the revolution. The acquisition of wealth during that time and until only recent history, was restricted to owner class, those of privilege and/or aristocracy, while the average worker had to suffer poverty with little or no chance to rise up in status. As noted above in another post, the need for the English empire to branch out to into other areas of the world due to the loss of taxes gleaned from exploiting the American colonies lead them to colonize and leech the profit off other colonial pursuits in other parts of the world. The brutal oppression and suppression of indigenous populations never waned in the hearts and souls of the "average Brit", and helped expand the English empire. In this sense, the need for dominance and world hegemony has never waned in the "average Brit" even if they personally do not profit off the exploitation schemes, although there is the presumed assumption that profit will eventually trickle down to the average person. However, the revolution and expurgation of the United States from British hegemony most likely had little economic effect on the average Brit, and undoubtedly it produced little desire for freedom and equality between the classes.

It was probably the era of Socialism which has had the greatest impact on the average Brit, however the need to expand empire has never waned.

Edited September 1, 2015 by me313

[timbothaivisa]

The English mercantile class never stopped profiting off the lucrative trade partnerships it had benefited from in trade with the Colonies preceding the War of Independence. The profit off the colonies that the Crown sorely missed after the Revolutionary War were the undue excises and taxes it had forced on the colonies, which eventually lead to the revolution. The purpose of some of the earliest Continental legislation was to resume commercial partnership with the English and retain the earlier trade routes, particularly that of the slave trade, the West Indies trade supply routes, along with all the shipping and cargo that had previously been entered to in partnership between the two. If you want further elaboration into the partnership between the Crown and that of the Colonies, I suggest reading the Declaration of Independence, which clearly spells out the wrongs the Crown had incurred upon the Colonies, and the vicious means of carrying out it's profit-engendering exploitation of the colonies.

If the average Brit had benefited or suffered loss due to the former Colonial relationship between the Crown of England and that of the Colonies before or after the Revolution, I doubt that profit margin has changed much in the 200+ years since the revolution. The acquisition of wealth during that time and until only recent history, was restricted to owner class, those of privilege and/or aristocracy, while the average worker had to suffer poverty with little or no chance to rise up in status. As noted above in another post, the need for the English empire to branch out to into other areas of the world due to the loss of taxes gleaned from exploiting the American colonies lead them to colonize and leech the profit off other colonial pursuits in other parts of the world. The brutal oppression and suppression of indigenous populations never waned in the hearts and souls of the "average Brit", and helped expand the English empire. In this sense, the need for dominance and world hegemony has never waned in the "average Brit" even if they personally do not profit off the exploitation schemes, although there is the presumed assumption that profit will eventually trickle down to the average person. However, the revolution and expurgation of the United States from British hegemony most likely had little economic effect on the average Brit, and undoubtedly it produced little desire for freedom and equality between the classes.

It was probably the era of Socialism which has had the greatest impact on the average Brit, however the need to expand empire has never waned.

Always entertaining to hear people whine on about how awful Britain was as a colonial power, as if that characteristic were somehow unique to the sceptered isle. Subjugation and exploitation are *human* characteristics, which means that every culture has either perpetrated such at some point in their history, or has desired to but failed.

Pointing 100 year-old fingers at the culture which effectively brought overt militaristic colonialism to an end, is about as close to a pot calling the kettle as one can get. A grand coincidence of timing, history & geography just meant Britain was able to do it better than the rest.

[elgordo38]

The English mercantile class never stopped profiting off the lucrative trade partnerships it had benefited from in trade with the Colonies preceding the War of Independence. The profit off the colonies that the Crown sorely missed after the Revolutionary War were the undue excises and taxes it had forced on the colonies, which eventually lead to the revolution. The purpose of some of the earliest Continental legislation was to resume commercial partnership with the English and retain the earlier trade routes, particularly that of the slave trade, the West Indies trade supply routes, along with all the shipping and cargo that had previously been entered to in partnership between the two. If you want further elaboration into the partnership between the Crown and that of the Colonies, I suggest reading the Declaration of Independence, which clearly spells out the wrongs the Crown had incurred upon the Colonies, and the vicious means of carrying out it's profit-engendering exploitation of the colonies.

If the average Brit had benefited or suffered loss due to the former Colonial relationship between the Crown of England and that of the Colonies before or after the Revolution, I doubt that profit margin has changed much in the 200+ years since the revolution. The acquisition of wealth during that time and until only recent history, was restricted to owner class, those of privilege and/or aristocracy, while the average worker had to suffer poverty with little or no chance to rise up in status. As noted above in another post, the need for the English empire to branch out to into other areas of the world due to the loss of taxes gleaned from exploiting the American colonies lead them to colonize and leech the profit off other colonial pursuits in other parts of the world. The brutal oppression and suppression of indigenous populations never waned in the hearts and souls of the "average Brit", and helped expand the English empire. In this sense, the need for dominance and world hegemony has never waned in the "average Brit" even if they personally do not profit off the exploitation schemes, although there is the presumed assumption that profit will eventually trickle down to the average person. However, the revolution and expurgation of the United States from British hegemony most likely had little economic effect on the average Brit, and undoubtedly it produced little desire for freedom and equality between the classes.

It was probably the era of Socialism which has had the greatest impact on the average Brit, however the need to expand empire has never waned.

Your last statement is correct. We are still under a form of colonialism only this time by big business who evolved from the rich who became richer making illegal money during prohibition, dealing in arms and other nefarious schemes. It might not be obvious but the world is still under a class system beneath the surface. Once you have made your first million the rest is easy well today it might be 5 million. The only thing we seem good for now is to vote for our new masters when they come begging at our door at election time and to toil in their ventures. I was a labor person all of my life with a good choice of jobs with good pay and benefits. That is all gone now for the average person. We are on the outside looking in. The few who have found good jobs are being squeezed for more and more productivity. There seems little humanness in the average job today. Your like a automaton just wind your self up and work. Sorry to stray a bit.

[Jingthing]

They never stop with their British invasion.

Always telling us we don't get sarcasm and irony. Pedantic buggers.

Warm beer flowing on rotting teeth ... best of all possible worlds.

Didn't the redcoats get the message?

First it was the Beatles. All You Need Is Love. Gag me with a spoon!

Now we've got John Oliver. He's so critical. Love it or leave it.

Limey go home!

Edited September 1, 2015 by Jingthing

[lostoday]

Always entertaining to hear people whine on about how awful Britain was as a colonial power, as if that characteristic were somehow unique to the sceptered isle. Subjugation and exploitation are *human* characteristics, which means that every culture has either perpetrated such at some point in their history, or has desired to but failed.

Pointing 100 year-old fingers at the culture which effectively brought overt militaristic colonialism to an end, is about as close to a pot calling the kettle as one can get. A grand coincidence of timing, history & geography just meant Britain was able to do it better than the rest.

The (Atlantic) Charter stated the ideal goals of the war: no territorial aggrandizement; no territorial changes made against the wishes of the people; self-determination; restoration of self-government to those deprived of it; reduction of trade restrictions; global cooperation to secure better economic and social conditions for all; freedom from fear and want; freedom of the seas; and abandonment of the use of force, as well as disarmament of aggressor nations.