What if the American Revolutionary war was averted?

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4967
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:36 pm

PostTue Oct 08, 2013 10:51 pm » by Tuor10


The American Revolutionary war was fought because a bunch of British ex-pats were peeved about paying the British government money to keep British troops in North America. They were also peeved because the British government had created a demarcation line (proclamation of 1763), forbidding colonists from crossing the Appalachian Mountains into native Indian territory (this was a reward for those tribes that had sided with the British against the French in the Seven Years War). Those most against the British government - the mercantile class's – felt that they didn't need Britain anymore because previous threats to their prosperity had been extirpated.

We all know what happened next; but what a lot of people don't know is the fact that the American Revolutionary war was nearly averted. After news of the Boston tea party reached Britain, a debate took place in parliament. The Whigs in the British parliament put forward a motion, that would grant full autonomy to the colonists on the basis that they kept George III as their sovereign. The motion was finally turned down by the North government after a number of fierce debates. The Whigs argued whether Great Britain had any authority over the “haughty American Republicans". Years later, when Canadian colonists starting getting refractory, the idea resurfaced. This lead to the “commonwealth of nations”.

I doubt whether the more ardent Revolutionary would have accepted such a deal. Republican fervor was omnipresent throughout the mercantile class's. Nothing short of a modern federalist system would have stopped the colonies from rebelling in the end. Yet, I do wonder what would have happened if the American Revolutionary war had been averted. I have no doubt that America would have broken away from the Empire at some stage; but if it had happened in mid-19th century, for example, what would have been the long term consequences for the evolution of the American state? What would have been the cultural ramifications if America had stayed tied to Britain for longer?

Interesting subject, which is rarely talked about by historians.

Hollywood's version of a United people fighting against a tyrannical Monarchy is pure fiction.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4967
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:36 pm

PostTue Oct 08, 2013 11:24 pm » by Tuor10


I think these scenes from the film - 'The Madness of King George' - best illustrate the affect it had on the British psyche at the time:


Upload to Disclose.tv


Initiate
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:08 pm

PostTue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 pm » by mykingdomforthetruth


the american citizens wont win another civil war the UN will crush them along side americas own tropos who follow orders blindly
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2968
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:50 pm
Location: 2 Thirds Down The Bottle

PostWed Oct 09, 2013 12:14 am » by Toxic32


Tuor10 wrote:The American Revolutionary war was fought because a bunch of British ex-pats were peeved about paying the British government money to keep British troops in North America. They were also peeved because the British government had created a demarcation line (proclamation of 1763), forbidding colonists from crossing the Appalachian Mountains into native Indian territory (this was a reward for those tribes that had sided with the British against the French in the Seven Years War). Those most against the British government - the mercantile class's – felt that they didn't need Britain anymore because previous threats to their prosperity had been extirpated.

We all know what happened next; but what a lot of people don't know is the fact that the American Revolutionary war was nearly averted. After news of the Boston tea party reached Britain, a debate took place in parliament. The Whigs in the British parliament put forward a motion, that would grant full autonomy to the colonists on the basis that they kept George III as their sovereign. The motion was finally turned down by the North government after a number of fierce debates. The Whigs argued whether Great Britain had any authority over the “haughty American Republicans". Years later, when Canadian colonists starting getting refractory, the idea resurfaced. This lead to the “commonwealth of nations”.

I doubt whether the more ardent Revolutionary would have accepted such a deal. Republican fervor was omnipresent throughout the mercantile class's. Nothing short of a modern federalist system would have stopped the colonies from rebelling in the end. Yet, I do wonder what would have happened if the American Revolutionary war had been averted. I have no doubt that America would have broken away from the Empire at some stage; but if it had happened in mid-19th century, for example, what would have been the long term consequences for the evolution of the American state? What would have been the cultural ramifications if America had stayed tied to Britain for longer?

Interesting subject, which is rarely talked about by historians.

Hollywood's version of a United people fighting against a tyrannical Monarchy is pure fiction.




Good question. But lets explore the possibilities a little deeper. I have no doubt that America would be discovered at some time in it's history if not by the French, Spanish or who ever. Of course we conveniently forget it was already populated by people. So it's not so much discovering it. It's who gets to invade it and exploit it first. Let's assume it was a country that didn't agree with slavery who invaded the country and took the reins. No civil war. No segregation because there would be no black population to talk about. How would that have effected the culture and growth of the country. Put that in a simulated computer model and see what it throws up.
I question everything. I don't believe anything I'm told or anything I see. Prove it, or fuck off. And that's not me I see in the mirror in the morning.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4967
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:36 pm

PostWed Oct 09, 2013 12:50 am » by Tuor10


Toxic32 wrote:

Good question. But lets explore the possibilities a little deeper. I have no doubt that America would be discovered at some time in it's history if not by the French, Spanish or who ever. Of course we conveniently forget it was already populated by people. So it's not so much discovering it. It's who gets to invade it and exploit it first. Let's assume it was a country that didn't agree with slavery who invaded the country and took the reins. No civil war. No segregation because there would be no black population to talk about. How would that have effected the culture and growth of the country. Put that in a simulated computer model and see what it throws up.





Some believe the Vikings settled in North America a long time before Columbus got there. I recall reading that the Viking population that had settled were driven out or killed because of a misunderstanding. Basically, they gave Milk to the Native Indians, who then became sick because they were lactose intolerant. They thought the Vikings had tried to poised them.

Ironically enough, Slavery would have ended much quicker if the colonies would have remained British.

The French penetrated the deepest into the North American interior, and co-existed with the Native Indians.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2968
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:50 pm
Location: 2 Thirds Down The Bottle

PostWed Oct 09, 2013 1:13 am » by Toxic32


Ok the Vikings never made it. So I agree the French were the main competition. But if left a loan maybe the resident people would have risen to the challenge the Inuit or other indigenous peoples may have grown and took control. But given they had no concept of land ownership I doubt they would have evolved a system that would unify and take control. So that leaves the French.
I question everything. I don't believe anything I'm told or anything I see. Prove it, or fuck off. And that's not me I see in the mirror in the morning.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4967
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:36 pm

PostWed Oct 09, 2013 1:36 am » by Tuor10


Toxic32 wrote: But given they had no concept of land ownership I doubt they would have evolved a system that would unify and take control.


Very good point, Toxic.

Christian Missionaries tried to covert the Native American tribes, but were unsuccessful - due in part to the bond they had with the land.

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 382
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 3:04 am

PostWed Oct 09, 2013 2:26 am » by flsts1


mykingdomforthetruth wrote:the american citizens wont win another civil war the UN will crush them along side americas own tropos who follow orders blindly

Ya' figure, eh?
It only took 3% of the population last time....
Try not to become a man of success but a man of value.
Albert Einstein

Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:08 am

PostWed Oct 09, 2013 1:04 pm » by Nibiru_X


flsts1 wrote:
mykingdomforthetruth wrote:the american citizens wont win another civil war the UN will crush them along side americas own tropos who follow orders blindly

Ya' figure, eh?
It only took 3% of the population last time....



"The Department of Homeland Security is set to purchase a further 21.6 million rounds of ammunition to add to the 1.6 billion bullets it has already obtained over the course of the last 10 months alone, figures which have stoked concerns that the federal agency is preparing for civil unrest."

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2968
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:50 pm
Location: 2 Thirds Down The Bottle

PostWed Oct 09, 2013 1:57 pm » by Toxic32


Nibiru_X wrote:
flsts1 wrote:
mykingdomforthetruth wrote:the american citizens wont win another civil war the UN will crush them along side americas own tropos who follow orders blindly

Ya' figure, eh?
It only took 3% of the population last time....



"The Department of Homeland Security is set to purchase a further 21.6 million rounds of ammunition to add to the 1.6 billion bullets it has already obtained over the course of the last 10 months alone, figures which have stoked concerns that the federal agency is preparing for civil unrest."


I think that works out at to about 60 rounds per person living in the US. They must be making allowances for all the crap shots they have in the NSA and the fact that most of the population is grossly obese and it make take a few rounds to penetrate the blubber. Hollow point makes a mess but not great for penetration. LOL

More likely who ever is ordering all these rounds has an interest in the company that has been awarded the contract or own a lot of shares in the company. How do you check to see if it was the lowest tender that won the contract? Or is it awarded by discretion after all the bids are in. You scratch my back and all that.
I question everything. I don't believe anything I'm told or anything I see. Prove it, or fuck off. And that's not me I see in the mirror in the morning.


Next

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook