Especially for Brits

According to my history professor, the reason we Americans wanted our Independence was really not over taxation without representation but that we simply did not want to pay the taxes. And she didn't even have a British accent:D

Suppose you won the War of American Independence?

I see two likely scenerios.

1. When WWI comes along the UK has the pd USA east of the Mississippi, but Spain and Russia still have most of the rest. The UK is simply not going to be able to call on the resources of those territories as it was IOTL, especially once the USA was in the war. Without those resources the UK and its allies lose.

2. Without American victory the French Reveloution as we know it never happens, without the French Reveloution German unification and the Russian Reveloution never happen. Without German unification WWI and the Bolshevik Reveloution
the UK is much better off to than it is today.

Or is something else entirely more likely?
 
According to my history professor, the reason we Americans wanted our Independence was really not over taxation without representation but that we simply did not want to pay the taxes. And she didn't even have a British accent:D

Suppose you won the War of American Independence?

I see two likely scenerios.

1. When WWI comes along the UK has the pd USA east of the Mississippi, but Spain and Russia still have most of the rest. The UK is simply not going to be able to call on the resources of those territories as it was IOTL, especially once the USA was in the war. Without those resources the UK and its allies lose.

2. Without American victory the French Reveloution as we know it never happens, without the French Reveloution German unification and the Russian Reveloution never happen. Without German unification WWI and the Bolshevik Reveloution
the UK is much better off to than it is today.

Or is something else entirely more likely?

What resources in Trans-Mississippi? In WW1 the majority of the industry was located in the East. Texan oil would still be available - Hollywood wouldn't be the same but we can get along without that.

I know it's popular to say that there would be no French Revolution without the American one but really the prime link between the two was economic. The American Revolution bankrupted the French so a similar situation was likely to occur after the next Anglo-French conflict (which was virtuallly certain to occur in the 1780's or 90's anyway, American revolution or not.
 
According to my history professor, the reason we Americans wanted our Independence was really not over taxation without representation but that we simply did not want to pay the taxes. And she didn't even have a British accent:D

Suppose you won the War of American Independence?

I see two likely scenerios.

1. When WWI comes along the UK has the pd USA east of the Mississippi, but Spain and Russia still have most of the rest. The UK is simply not going to be able to call on the resources of those territories as it was IOTL, especially once the USA was in the war. Without those resources the UK and its allies lose.

2. Without American victory the French Reveloution as we know it never happens, without the French Reveloution German unification and the Russian Reveloution never happen. Without German unification WWI and the Bolshevik Reveloution
the UK is much better off to than it is today.

Or is something else entirely more likely?

1. The butterflies leading to an analogue of World War I would ensure that it would be a completely different conflict that we would have known in OTL. Russia only had Alaska, the rest was taken up by Britain and Spain. There would have eventually been something in which Spain would lose its colonies.

And if Great Britain had won the Revolutionary War, there would have eventually been a 2nd or even a 3rd war, as Lord North and the rest of the "King's Friends" would have been punitive in its treatment of America, and the same underlying issues that caused the Revolution in the first place would still be there.

2. As mentioned, France entering the Revolutionary War had wrecked its finances, but France had a very dysfunctional system in place and eventually something would have gone off.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I think the best way to have the Brits KEEP the Americas, or at least for them to lose them in the Canadian vein (i.e. Dominion status) would be the Whigs coming back to power. Lord North completely f*cked things up and really stands out as an anomaly, politically-speaking, in the progression of Brit PMs.
 
Mexico being bigger is a possibility but OTL both Texas and California (and Oregon) had very large British populations (I think 40% of the anglos in California were British and even more born in the UK even if US citizens) before US annexation and without an independent USA

If something kicks off, and it will, there would be significant pressure for Annexation by the UK.

Again from a British POV the issues in the American Revolution are pretty much the next round of the English Civil War so the settlement of 1688 is likely to be the model.

Also I think any settlement not involving independence would be quick, i.e. prior to foreign intervention so say Bunker Hill is a decisive low casualty victory for the British or a clear defeat leading to acceptance of the Olive Branch petition.

With a short bloodless war being punitive is much less of an option.
 
You know what else wouldn't have happened if no American revolution?

No Simpsons on Tv!

I'm being silly of course, but if you change major things in the 1760s and 1770s, the world is going to be very different in 20 or 30 years, let alone 50 or 150!
 
We can't ignore Russia's CLAIMS and AMBITIONS in a world where there is no USA and where the British in America are clearly extended.

Rezanov's intended expansion for the Russian-American Company was into Spanish territory, and one could imagine that sans British interest, Russia may well end up in a war with Spain over at least half the territory of the W USA

I also think that autonomous Native Indian states could well survive as recognised polities in between the various empires, as sort of buffer zones and client states.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The Louisiana Purchase typically given a date of 1803 was kind of complicated, wasn't it? With France winning territory in a war from Spain and then selling it to the U.S., along with less-densely populated territory they already had?

Does anyone know a lot about this and can please help us.
 
The Louisiana Purchase typically given a date of 1803 was kind of complicated, wasn't it? With France winning territory in a war from Spain and then selling it to the U.S., along with less-densely populated territory they already had?

Does anyone know a lot about this and can please help us.

France took it back just before selling it.

Google it for details and report back what you have found:)
 
A British victory would be good for the Native Americans as the British would not so gung ho for settlements west of the Appalachians. Consequently I would expect at least one equivalent of the Boer Great Trek to colonise the banks of the Mississippi River as well as a push into Texas.
 
Top