Who would you have supported in the American Revolutionary War?

Who would you have supported in the American Revolutionary War?

  • The US/Americans

  • Britain/the UK


Results are only viewable after voting.

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,716
SoCal
#1
Who would you have supported in the American Revolutionary War?

Personally, I voted for the US/Americans but only due to my interest in US expansionism and settler colonialism (though I certainly do think that the US was way too brutal at times :(). I'm just not sure that the US would have ever acquired Texas or the Southwestern US (Mexican Cession) in a scenario where Britain would have won the American Revolutionary War. If it wasn't for this factor, though, then I would have probably voted for Britain/the UK for the reasons that Gwern laid out here:

My Mistakes - Gwern.net

I do disagree with Gwern that the US would have become much more like Canada in due time in a scenario where Britain would have won the American Revolutionary War. After all, I suspect that Americans (especially in the South) would have been resistant to the idea of big government regardless of who would have won the American Revolutionary War. Still, I am tempted to agree with Gwern's other points in regards to this.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2019
602
Serbia
#2
Britain, I see the revolt because of taxes and the lack of representation and the whole idea of ''King George is a tyrant, we are free!'' pretty.... hypocritical? Considering that Britain was one of the most free countries around with a much more ''modern'' system than most it is hard for me to call them a tyranny and a king who was devoted to his country and cared about his people a tyrant. The Native Americans might have a much larger population due to the Royal Proclamation presumably being in place. It is also a question of what would happen in the Napoleonic Wars due to the increased British colonial power.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,716
SoCal
#3
Britain, I see the revolt because of taxes and the lack of representation and the whole idea of ''King George is a tyrant, we are free!'' pretty.... hypocritical? Considering that Britain was one of the most free countries around with a much more ''modern'' system than most it is hard for me to call them a tyranny and a king who was devoted to his country and cared about his people a tyrant.
Yes, the British system was certainly better than, say, in France or Austria or Prussia or Russia during this time. After all, at least Britain actually had a parliament. Still, throwing the colonists a bone and giving them some representation in the British Parliament should not have been too much to ask for--should it?

The Native Americans might have a much larger population due to the Royal Proclamation presumably being in place.
Possibly--though please keep in mind that even before the American Revolutionary War, colonists were frequently violating this Proclamation and settling in Indian lands west of the Proclamation Line.

Also, please keep in mind that the US west of the Proclamation Line would be virtually unrecognizable today if settlers never actually settled west of this line.

It is also a question of what would happen in the Napoleonic Wars due to the increased British colonial power.
Well, what do you think would have happened?
 
Feb 2019
602
Serbia
#4
Still, throwing the colonists a bone and giving them some representation in the British Parliament should not have been too much to ask for--should it?
Perhaps not, but does this justify to go into open revolt and call Britain a tyranny? Considering the British sacrifices druing the 7 Years' War to keep and expand the colonies I think it is pretty ungrateful to complain in such a way.

Possibly--though please keep in mind that even before the American Revolutionary War, colonists were frequently violating this Proclamation and settling in Indian lands west of the Proclamation Line.

Also, please keep in mind that the US west of the Proclamation Line would be virtually unrecognizable today if settlers never actually settled west of this line.
I would imagine that after the Revolution ends in a British victory the colonies would be placed under stricter control so the Proclamation might be better enforced. A question is what would develop if the natives were left to their own devices?

Well, what do you think would have happened?
Sailors won't desert to America but might desert somewhere else, the trans-Atlantic trade and economy of Britain would be larger so it would be easier to face Napoelon's blockade. The West Indies would be easier to defend due to the many naval bases on the East Coast and there would be no War of 1812, so maybe a lesser distinct Canadian identity but also less losses in merchant shipping and the elimination of a front for Britain. Maybe no Austrlian penal colony and slower adventures in India.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,716
SoCal
#7
Perhaps not, but does this justify to go into open revolt and call Britain a tyranny? Considering the British sacrifices druing the 7 Years' War to keep and expand the colonies I think it is pretty ungrateful to complain in such a way.
Yeah, I think that you're correct in regards to this. I simply think that the colonists were pissed off by Britain's abandonment of its policy of salutary neglect--even if colonial taxes continued to be much lower than taxes in Britain itself.

I would imagine that after the Revolution ends in a British victory the colonies would be placed under stricter control so the Proclamation might be better enforced.
This might only be true if Britain quickly wins the war--and even then, it's not guaranteed considering that Britain would have a lot of other colonies and issues to worry about and thus might not feel that it has the necessary resources to enforce the Proclamation of 1763.

A question is what would develop if the natives were left to their own devices?
This area would probably be a giant Native American reservation today. Probably much less advanced than it would have been if European/American settlers had moved into this territory en masse.

Sailors won't desert to America but might desert somewhere else, the trans-Atlantic trade and economy of Britain would be larger so it would be easier to face Napoelon's blockade. The West Indies would be easier to defend due to the many naval bases on the East Coast and there would be no War of 1812, so maybe a lesser distinct Canadian identity but also less losses in merchant shipping and the elimination of a front for Britain. Maybe no Austrlian penal colony and slower adventures in India.
Makes sense.

BTW, to whom do you think that the sailors are going to defect in this scenario?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,716
SoCal
#9
Sorry, @Futurist, it's nothing that intelligent... the problem is that I combatively support both this:

View attachment 20099

AND this:

View attachment 20100

... all in one mind.


:lol:
That second photo reminds me of Lelouch's Geass in Code Geass:



Lelouch can use his Geass to mind-control people (though he can only use it once for each person). If only things were that easy for George Washington! ;)