If the American colonies had stayed loyal ?

[BuckyRea]

I think the American conservatives and everyone else would have genocided each other.

Why? They managed to conduct the War of Independence without doing so.

To be picky of nits, the ARW was conducted by the liberals.

 

[Traitorfish]

To be picky of nits, the ARW was conducted by the liberals.

That's what I meant. The "conservatives" of the period were Tories who supported the Crown, often taking up arms to do so.

 

[Miles Teg]

/obligatory post about why transposing modern political terms two centuries back in time is completely pointless

 

[Virote_Considon]

The American war of Independence was fought between the freedom-hating American "communist" revolutionaries and the freedom-hating British "fascist" dictatorship.

 

[Traitorfish]

/obligatory post about why transposing modern political terms two centuries back in time is completely pointless

Weeeeeell... The Tories were a self-identified political faction at the time of the American Revolutionary War, and were the precursor of modern Anglo-American conservatism, so that while it's certainly foolish to apply modern terminology directly onto a period in which it would be anachronistic, it's not entirely unreasonable to identify contemporary equivalents to modern day ideological factions.

...And the Patriots really were liberals. That's why, for example, they were called the "Sons of Liberty", and not, say, the "Sons of Whiggishness". If there's a misapplication, it's the exclusive use of "liberal" to refer specifically to modern social liberalism.

 

[Cutlass]

To be picky of nits, the ARW was conducted by the liberals.

Or, you could say, wild eyed radicals...

 

[madviking]

I think For The Want Of A Nail is one of the few relatively sane alt-histories with the US never forming.

 

[eazyhasaids]

I doubt the colonies population would have grown nearly as much under british rule as it did independently. The proclamtion of 63 probably would've been enforeced more strongly and napoleon wouldnt have sold Louisiana to the brits. Florida may still be spanish today as i would imagine London would be more strict with incursions by the colonists.
Assuming south america gains independence then that still leaves a place where large scale immigration occured (more italian brazilians than italian americans) and they would probably have a larger population today. I'm not sure how strongly the American Revolution affected the revolutions of 1848 but it did increase the number of intellectual immigrants coming to The US.

over all the world would be much more boring. coffee>tea, football>soccer, and democratic republics>constitutional monarchies.

and otago would have nothing to post about in OT

 

[Traitorfish]

Assuming south america gains independence then that still leaves a place where large scale immigration occured (more italian brazilians than italian americans

Why does British rule preclude mass immigration? Canada, Australia and New Zealand all remained British and they were major targets for immigration, and there was even a significant (if lower) level of migration to Britain itself.

 

[Fetus4188]

The Revolutionaries were inarguably liberal in the original sense of the word, not today's bastardized version.

 

[Yui108]

Look up the Albany Plan.

 

[eazyhasaids]

@traitorfish
This goes along with my assumption that the colonies would be smaller than the present US. One of the reasons for many of the native tribes siding with the brits during the revolution was because of the greater respect for sovereignty the english showed them than the colonists did. Also there is a chance that you would see less irish immigrating to another british colony while there are independent and catholic nations to the south. Immigration to Brazil and Argentina outpaced that of other british dominions. It's still possible that the colonies would see similar immigration levels as the US did i'm just pointing out one of the possibilities as it is almost impossible to accurately guess the consequences of a scenario like this.

 

[ParkCungHee]

OK, it is 1780 and American colonies and Britain have come to an agreement that the colonies would get representation in the UK in exchange for taxation.
Britain decides to reward HM's loyal American subjects by deciding they will become a fully self governing Dominion in 1830 with of course a Westminster type government and HM as head of state.
So people, what happens next ?

The American MPs politely decline, and consider when the capital of the Empire will be moved from their soon British colonies to New York City.

 

[Traitorfish]

The American MPs politely decline, and consider when the capital of the Empire will be moved from their soon British colonies to New York City.

But, in a shock compromise, the capital is moved to Montagu Island, on the basis that the less likely MPs are to be able to find parliament, the less damage they will be able to do.

 

[Louis XXIV]

To find a good example of an Act of Union that gave representation to a minority that still got dwarfed by a majority they didn't quite identify with, look to Ireland. Most Americans wanted their legislatures to have equal Sovereignty with Parliament under the Crown, not simple representation inside the Westminster Parliament (especially since any representative would either be in England for too much of the time to be connected to their constituents or would be unable to vote on important matters).

I'd also expect the colonists to continue to engage in smuggling when it suited them and ignore the Proclamation Line of 1763. On the other hand, I'd suspect that the influence of the Southern states might force Parliament to compromise on slavery, so they would still ban the African slave trade, but would continue to allow slavery in the southern states. Northern states, although they had little economic incentive to engage in slavery, might not become quite so abolitionist without having to face their hypocrisy in the American Revolution.

In other words, who the hell knows. Anything could happen.

 

[otago]

I wonder why the US colonies were not loyal outside the taxation issue that is.
I had a hunt but could not find the makeup of the population of the American colonies at that time, was there a lot less English descendants than say Irish, Scots. Germans, French etc etc etc ?

 

[Dachs]

I can't see how that'd be relevant. Ethnicity didn't determine loyalty.

 

[Leoreth]

The first question that popped into my head was how that would've affected the French Revolution.

I've often read that the colonies' successful revolution played a huge role in how promising the French people deemed a popular revolution, and that the involvement of French troops in the conflict influenced the behaviour of key figures like Lafayette.

But I admit my knowledge on the early phase of the revolution is sketchy at best, so can someone shed some light on it? Is the French Revolution likely to have happened anyway?

 

[aronnax]

I would think that if the American Revolution failed, it would mean a quicker French revolution.

Crushing the American Revolution would mean that France lost the war, probably after some quick naval action where Britain destroys the French fleet. Again. For the billionth time in history.

Which would mean that there would be more popular discontent after the war. High taxes, little food, corrupt system, broken tax policy, autocracy, the Bourbons in general and on top of that, the fifth consecutive war against Britain where the French was defeated (or as least indecisively drawn).

 

[Cutlass]

Why does British rule preclude mass immigration? Canada, Australia and New Zealand all remained British and they were major targets for immigration, and there was even a significant (if lower) level of migration to Britain itself.

How much of the 18th and 19th century immigration to places like Canada and other British Empire dominions was by people who were not from the British Empire? The US gained more and more immigrants from all of Europe, and not just British and Irish. I don't know how much that would affect immigration totals.

I wonder why the US colonies were not loyal outside the taxation issue that is.
I had a hunt but could not find the makeup of the population of the American colonies at that time, was there a lot less English descendants than say Irish, Scots. Germans, French etc etc etc ?

At least in some areas, like NY, the English decedents were the more revolutionary, and some others, like the Dutch, were more Tory.