Would a world without the USA a worse world?

Would a world without the USA a worse world?

  • Yes

    Votes: 126 53.6%
  • No

    Votes: 109 46.4%

  • Total voters
    235
Well, before ARW, most if not all rebellions, either peasant rebellions (especially in Asia) or noble rebellions, resulted in a new king with a new dynasty (replacing an old monarchy with a new one), most of which eventually became a new tyranny after several generations. ARW was the first time when the result was entirely different: a new regime in which normal citizens (not all, but far more than just the landed nobility only) actually had a say.


The demand for public education at first grew out of this revolution, which was the first victory of liberalism. Before that, education was only limited for the elites. Mass illiteracy and ignorance would be common characteristics of a world without liberalism. And for many countries, industrial revolution could be butterflied away.


Britain could have done the same, if not worse. Look at the way they oppressed and exploited their Asian and African colonies to the bones.
Ignorance is still plentiful in the world today.
 
Oh I was more referring to the fact that many Americans rebelled due to seeing George III as a tyrant and many still do today. Yet few accept or even know that by this point parliament and elected government decided policy and taxation not the king.
A lot of that stuff about tyranny only came in when provincial legislatures were shut down, towns and houses occupied, ports blockades, and weapons seized from them as if they were traitors, despite it being considered the duty of Englishmen to be in militias. Also the issue about hiring Hessian mercenaries and the King having a speech telling that he was doing that. And as I mentioned, Parliament had a third of the seats being literally bought, with dozens representing less than a thousand people altogether. One of the issues was also that colonialists didn't think they were being given the rights of Englishmen. As for the "few accept or know" I fear you may be thinking of some time long ago, as I haven't heard much talk giving George III full blame since seeing some Schoolhouse Rocks a decade and a half back.
 
But much more without liberalism, which would never risw to prominence without the US.
Though liberalism varies from place to place. One of the most important things with the ex-colonies was that they both had their laws written down (with a generally high literacy rate in many colonies, plus loads of lawyers) but they could be changed through the democratic process. Sure, there were property requirements to vote in many places early on, but enough people had property that large swathes of the population could vote. Blacks and women could vote for a time, though that was removed as time went on, but women's suffrage did come in with many of the new states in the Great Plains. It was all complicated. Anyways, one of the things I have felt to be most important was that, after independence was accepted by Britain and everyone started settling down, eat state started to disestablish their churches. Might be one of the earlier examples of church and state being separated and staying that way. Much better for everyone that they don't have people interfering with each other, even if one might have thought colonies designed to be settled by one denomination and using churches to get around laws against public gatherings would be more theocratic. Then again, the Church of England had been the ones oppressing them in the passed and they were happy keeping things to their own congregations.
 

IFwanderer

Banned
But much more without liberalism, which would never risw to prominence without the US.
Woosh.

S/He's saying that you're wrong about this:

most if not all rebellions, either peasant rebellions (especially in Asia) or noble rebellions, resulted in a new king with a new dynasty (replacing an old monarchy with a new one)

Getting back to the actual content of your post, specifically this part:

liberalism, which would never risw to prominence without the US.

Since when are the words "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" in English? Or, to be less snarky, there's 1. a rich tradition of liberalism before the US declared independence, upheld by philosophers like John Locke, JJ Rousseau, or Voltaire among others and 2. This tradition was by itself very influential within Europe, so it's perfectly possible for it to emerge in another country. Like, maybe a great European power, exhausted and bankrupted by a costly war and headed by an impopular king ends up suffering a revolt, and the power falls into the hand of a bunch of young bourgeois men, who, inspired by liberal ideals, decide to try and create some kind of, I don't know, government of "the common people" (so, a common thing, maybe in Latin to sound better, so a Res Publica), and that state ends up pushing liberalism throughout Europe. You know, something crazy like that, that never happened OTL.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Since when are the words "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" in English? Or, to be less snarky, there's 1. a rich tradition of liberalism before the US declared independence, upheld by philosophers like John Locke, JJ Rousseau, or Voltaire among others and 2. This tradition was by itself very influential within Europe, so it's perfectly possible for it to emerge in another country. Like, maybe a great European power, exhausted and bankrupted by a costly war and headed by an impopular king ends up suffering a revolt, and the power falls into the hand of a bunch of young bourgeois men, who, inspired by liberal ideals, decide to try and create some kind of, I don't know, government of "the common people" (so, a common thing, maybe in Latin to sound better, so a Res Publica), and that state ends up pushing liberalism throughout Europe. You know, something crazy like that, that never happened OTL.
Well, but depending on how US independence being butterflied away, FR could be also butterflied away. Well, despotism remains in charge of the world.
 
Well, the US was not perfect, but it became the first time in history when people actually stood up against the oppressors and fought for the Rights of Man and hence it did inspire people around the world. Besides, the ARW in one way or another led to French Revolution, which spread radical ideas of equality and liberty, as well as nationalism. Also because of that, the US also became the land of opportunity for lower-class Europeans who were oppressed by European monarchies àn nobilities.

After all, the US and later France were the world's only democracies during the 19th century (Britain should not be considered as a democracy until 1928).

Well, the bottom line is that until 1914 only a third of British male adult population were eligible to vote. Meanwhile, all US white males could vote since 1860.

Racism was common during the 19th century. For Britain, we cannot conclude like that because there weren't a lot of people of other colors in the UK.
Honestly, do people still believe all of this guff?

The reality is, by modern standards none of these countries were proper democracies - in fact few nations in the world were (if any).

Britain at the time of the ARW was far more liberal and democratic than most European nations, with parliament holding power at the time, which it had done since the Bill of Rights was enacted in 1689 - a century before the US version. In fact the Republican institution that the "founding fathers" implemented, that exists to this day, was set up to be largely undemocratic, and ensure domination based on wealth. Lest we forget most of them were slave owners. Indeed the core principle behind the ARW was not the poor oppressed man in the field not being given a voice, but the landed gentry of America being expected to pay taxes to support Armies in north America without representation before the King - something that harked back to the English Civil War 150 years earlier.

The French revolution was undoubtedly influenced by the ARW, but America losing this war does not butterfly it away - the fervour for reform in Europe already existed, and France was already in financial difficulties after the 7YW - the ARW just made things worse and ensured that the Estates General would eventually be called.

As to 19th century democracies, Britain steadily became more democratic as the century went on, particularly the reform acts of 1832 and 1867, and the secret ballot in 1872 - the US would not follow for another two decades. As to the French, well they went from Empire, to constitutional Monarchy, to Republic, back to Empire and back to Republic again. Universal male suffrage came in in 1848, but by 1852 they were an Empire again.

Anyway, as to the original question and linked to the above, the general anti Monarchic pro liberal democracy movement was in effect and gathering pace in Europe in the 18th century and continued into the 19th - the ARW was both a product of that and an influencer. Even if you have the ARW fail, the initial grievances are still there and need to be address - so you'll still end up with a semi-autonomous dominion long term at the least.

Beyond that it's really hard to say, but of course within 100 years the other dominions were all but independant any way, so who's to say that the US might not have ended up going a similar way anyway?
 
A lot of that stuff about tyranny only came in when provincial legislatures were shut down, towns and houses occupied, ports blockades, and weapons seized from them as if they were traitors, despite it being considered the duty of Englishmen to be in militias. Also the issue about hiring Hessian mercenaries and the King having a speech telling that he was doing that. And as I mentioned, Parliament had a third of the seats being literally bought, with dozens representing less than a thousand people altogether. One of the issues was also that colonialists didn't think they were being given the rights of Englishmen. As for the "few accept or know" I fear you may be thinking of some time long ago, as I haven't heard much talk giving George III full blame since seeing some Schoolhouse Rocks a decade and a half back.

A conversation with an Average American tends to belie that point, I've found apart from this board, most don't know their George III from their George II or I.
Furthermore, with Parliament and government being the ones in power, who do you think prompted the King to give that speech.

But much more without liberalism, which would never risw to prominence without the US.

Perhaps, perhaps not.
 

IFwanderer

Banned
Well, but depending on how US independence being butterflied away, FR could be also butterflied away. Well, despotism remains in charge of the world.
The point is, even if avoiding US independence happened in such a way as to butterfly away the FR, conditions like the ones that caused it could still happen in other European countries, especially when keeping in mind what @sendô just said.
 
Oh there were many democratic republican revolutions before the ARW. Corsica 1755, Dutch independence wars, the revolts which resulted in the establishmen of medieval communes, various "heretical" movements even throughout the first millennium CE, and of course athenian or Roman role models, not to speak of regions outside Europe i know less about.

But still the ARW provided good momentum after an era of absolutist monarchies.
 
Honestly, do people still believe all of this guff?

The reality is, by modern standards none of these countries were proper democracies - in fact few nations in the world were (if any).

Britain at the time of the ARW was far more liberal and democratic than most European nations, with parliament holding power at the time, which it had done since the Bill of Rights was enacted in 1689 - a century before the US version. In fact the Republican institution that the "founding fathers" implemented, that exists to this day, was set up to be largely undemocratic, and ensure domination based on wealth. Lest we forget most of them were slave owners. Indeed the core principle behind the ARW was not the poor oppressed man in the field not being given a voice, but the landed gentry of America being expected to pay taxes to support Armies in north America without representation before the King - something that harked back to the English Civil War 150 years earlier.

The French revolution was undoubtedly influenced by the ARW, but America losing this war does not butterfly it away - the fervour for reform in Europe already existed, and France was already in financial difficulties after the 7YW - the ARW just made things worse and ensured that the Estates General would eventually be called.

As to 19th century democracies, Britain steadily became more democratic as the century went on, particularly the reform acts of 1832 and 1867, and the secret ballot in 1872 - the US would not follow for another two decades. As to the French, well they went from Empire, to constitutional Monarchy, to Republic, back to Empire and back to Republic again. Universal male suffrage came in in 1848, but by 1852 they were an Empire again.

Anyway, as to the original question and linked to the above, the general anti Monarchic pro liberal democracy movement was in effect and gathering pace in Europe in the 18th century and continued into the 19th - the ARW was both a product of that and an influencer. Even if you have the ARW fail, the initial grievances are still there and need to be address - so you'll still end up with a semi-autonomous dominion long term at the least.

Beyond that it's really hard to say, but of course within 100 years the other dominions were all but independant any way, so who's to say that the US might not have ended up going a similar way anyway?
Hard to know where to begin with this, a lot of it is true, but we may never know how much of reforming was due to pressures to keep down revolt. Sure, the British government tended to act roughly with demonstrations, but the franchise was widened piece by piece, and the Whigs got more authority by people seeing the American War of Independence being disastrous for the treasury and bringing in the Spanish and French against them. As for dominions, those came about partially from experience gained from American independence. Keep certain powers for the empire, collect some taxes for local needs, but giving powers to local assemblies didn't mean disaster. The US was still one of Britain's biggest trading partners after independence.

As for the stuff about the reason for the ARW, I think that most of the problems came with soldiers housing themselves in the homes of the middle class more than large scale landowners paying extra taxes. A lot of the taxes were on individual items. And if you go to England, a lot of items were veeery highly taxed and tarrifed. Parliament rolled back a lot of the taxes in the colonies, before we got the whole tea fiasco which I feel the boycotting of and drinking of coffee to have been a decent enough form of protest.

One fear some had was that the colonies might be treated like Ireland was, with industry being suppressed and the colonies being a source of raw materials and a place to ship manufactured goods too. Now, if we have the colonies as a part of the empire, we should think over how long it would take before Ontario, the Midwest, and the Old Southeast would take to settle. The colonials were not happy about the war they saw themselves as taking part in ending with them needing to stay on one side of the Appalachians. Whatever happens, the settlements of these lands will be important. Canada and the Midwest provided vast quantities of grain for the British, though the landed gentry of the British Isles had Corn Laws dealing with these areas, Poland, and everywhere but perhaps Ireland, as they wanted to keep food prices high to stay wealthy and in power. If the Thirteen Colonies stay British, Canada might stay more French, though I wonder if the Midwest would still officially be part of Quebec. I lost myself though... ahh, yes. If the colonies stay int he empire then they will be very upset if they are treated as foreigners with laws keeping down their industry and making their grain more difficult to sell. When the Midwest is settled though, and you have plenty of small farmers from New England, the Middle Colonies, etc going there, then you tie the land together (hopefully without those loooong colonial border claims) and make staying within this protectionist empire more palatable. And for the Old Southwest... ahhh, cotton. Textiles are such an important part of the British economy for the last six or eight hundred years that I imagine abolishing slavery would be made to wait a lot longer, or some indenture service is reintroduced, possibly with debtors or prisoners being sent there from England. Though they had stopped that originally because they kept escaping. Now, if we can have the colonies east of the Mississippi colonized in the same way as IOTL, then there should be a resource base that can help loosen the power of landed aristocrats in the U.K. (So long as the East Indies Company and such lose their monopolies in tea and other goods) in favor of reformers.
 
A conversation with an Average American tends to belie that point, I've found apart from this board, most don't know their George III from their George II or I.
Furthermore, with Parliament and government being the ones in power, who do you think prompted the King to give that speech.
George I, a man who didn't speak English and was a bit too focused on Brunswick and under who the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer became to evolve into two the position of Prime Minister. George II dealt with the Jacobites such as the Bonny Prince Charles, who considered converting to Protestantism to be acceptable as king of England and who didn't give a fuck about Ireland or Scotland outside of using it as a springboard for the more lucrative throne with the more centralized power. George III was the first of his dynasty to not speak with a German accent. He supported parliament, though was bailed out financially once or twice. He had loads of children and he never cheated on his wife, though possibly had some relations early on before being married. He was derisively called Farmer John for his simple manner, his interests in agricultural innovations, though his simple lifestyle was later compared positively compared to his son, who had a rather luxurious lifestyle and for whom the Crown Estates was formed into a portfolio of sorts, with the British government getting the income fm those lands n exchange for giving an annual stipend to the king and for assuming his earlier debts. Back then a lot of the land had been rented out and didn't have the high income it has today, which in fact makes the U.K. Government a tidy profit. Ahhh, and George III wrote up up a letter of abdication at the end of the war but never delivered it, and later on considered abdicating and moving to Hanover when his health got worse and his powers curtailed somewhat. And seriously, what does it matter if some people from parliament and the king agree in telling Parliment that Hessian are being sent over to the Americas? Parliment and the King did go hand in hand at the time, and he supported them. Not as if he would otherwise be waiting around to say 'surprise!' A couple of months after the mercenaries arrived.


Now let use hear you talk about Marat, John Quincy Adams, Talleyrand, and Martin Van Buren. You can't blame people for not having in depth knowledge about something if you walk up to them in the street and start asking them about history. It is more concerning if they bring it up. And I do not think many people do about doing that.
 
George I, a man who didn't speak English and was a bit too focused on Brunswick and under who the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer became to evolve into two the position of Prime Minister. George II dealt with the Jacobites such as the Bonny Prince Charles, who considered converting to Protestantism to be acceptable as king of England and who didn't give a fuck about Ireland or Scotland outside of using it as a springboard for the more lucrative throne with the more centralized power. George III was the first of his dynasty to not speak with a German accent. He supported parliament, though was bailed out financially once or twice. He had loads of children and he never cheated on his wife, though possibly had some relations early on before being married. He was derisively called Farmer John for his simple manner, his interests in agricultural innovations, though his simple lifestyle was later compared positively compared to his son, who had a rather luxurious lifestyle and for whom the Crown Estates was formed into a portfolio of sorts, with the British government getting the income fm those lands n exchange for giving an annual stipend to the king and for assuming his earlier debts. Back then a lot of the land had been rented out and didn't have the high income it has today, which in fact makes the U.K. Government a tidy profit. Ahhh, and George III wrote up up a letter of abdication at the end of the war but never delivered it, and later on considered abdicating and moving to Hanover when his health got worse and his powers curtailed somewhat. And seriously, what does it matter if some people from parliament and the king agree in telling Parliment that Hessian are being sent over to the Americas? Parliment and the King did go hand in hand at the time, and he supported them. Not as if he would otherwise be waiting around to say 'surprise!' A couple of months after the mercenaries arrived.


Now let use hear you talk about Marat, John Quincy Adams, Talleyrand, and Martin Van Buren. You can't blame people for not having in depth knowledge about something if you walk up to them in the street and start asking them about history. It is more concerning if they bring it up. And I do not think many people do about doing that.

Jean Paul Marat, a french political theorist, physician and scientist whose work helped make him known the world over, as a radical and a man who advocated for the September Massacres, his assasinated in 1793 only ped increase the legend.

John Quincy Adams, a diplomant and Sixth President of the USA, the son of John Adams, his nationalist commitment to republican ideals helped shape early American Foreign policy and he helped negotiate several treaties such as the Treaty of Ghent, in his later political career he was known for his great revulsion of slavery.

Talleyrand, represented the Catholic Church at the court of the French crown, served as foreign minister under successive French governments, was often distrusted by those he worked for but was seen as a useful minister. Negotiated treaties with Austria and Britain during the Napoleonic wars to help consolidate French gains in long lasting solution.

Martin van Buren, a president of the United States, founder of the Democratic Party, and a man who held a variety of positions during a storied career. The first President to be born as a United States Citizen, and a man who was blamed for economic troubles during the middle of the 19th century, being dubbed as Martin van Ruin. His opposition to the purchase of Texas cost him another nomination to the Democratic ticket.

And nicely done stating what you know about the three Georges, I do wish more people knew more about history though, would be nice change in conversation from the shiw show that often happens
 
I'm on a mobile device so can't easily respond point by point to the responses above, bur I just wanted to say this is an excellent thread. The disagreements are all about adding nuance and broader context as we each concede many of the points on the other side of the argument. It is a credit to all contributors and I wish whole internet was like this.

Overall, I think it's clear that there is no overwhelming case one way or the other. The world could very plausibly be better or worse depending on how slavery, liberal rights and colonialism develop. These are more likely to depend on secondary and tertiary effects that could very easily go one way or another whether or not we have a successful American Revolution.
 
Overall, I think it's clear that there is no overwhelming case one way or the other. The world could very plausibly be better or worse depending on how slavery, liberal rights and colonialism develop. These are more likely to depend on secondary and tertiary effects that could very easily go one way or another whether or not we have a successful American Revolution.

You just perfectly described my thoughts right here. It's Alternate History. Anything is possible.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
As to 19th century democracies, Britain steadily became more democratic as the century went on, particularly the reform acts of 1832 and 1867, and the secret ballot in 1872 - the US would not follow for another two decades.
Well, the US achieved universal white male suffrage long before 1867.

Britain at the time of the ARW was far more liberal and democratic than most European nations, with parliament holding power at the time, which it had done since the Bill of Rights was enacted in 1689 - a century before the US version. In fact the Republican institution that the "founding fathers" implemented, that exists to this day, was set up to be largely undemocratic, and ensure domination based on wealth. Lest we forget most of them were slave owners. Indeed the core principle behind the ARW was not the poor oppressed man in the field not being given a voice, but the landed gentry of America being expected to pay taxes to support Armies in north America without representation before the King - something that harked back to the English Civil War 150 years earlier.
More than most of Europe, but clearly less than the US and Third French Republic at least until 1918. Before 1918, Britain was essentially an oligarchy, with only a third of male adults eligible to vote.

Britain certainly oppressed North American colonies (of course nowhere near cruel as the way they treated Asian and African colonies) by trying to make it forever a backward exporter of raw materials for the mother country, and placing numerous restrictions on trade and industries there. This kind of treatment combined with American rapid population growth might lead to a famine, although not as horrible as Irish Famine.

Not to mention that the way Britain treated its White colonies after ARW was heavily influenced by the experience from the war. With US independence being butterflied away, the Whigs would be weaker and there might be no need to learn the lessons. IOTL, the victory in Napoleonic War also allowed the Tories to block reforms.
 
Let's say the ARW failed and Britain held on to the Thirteen Colonies.

How would the world look like? Would it become worse than OTL, especially ITTL, the French Revolution could be butterflied away?
Could be worse or could be better. Depends on what actually happens.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
Could be worse or could be better. Depends on what actually happens.

I think that's the only logical answer. I would argue most results where the *US is split up into at least 3 dominions would be much better for the world, a result that blocked some kind of big inspiring liberal revolution in Europe pre-1810 would be bad. Most of the theoretical inspiration for movements towards justice in the World comes from the French Revolution, the ideological content of the AR was much more lightweight, Thomas Paine excepted.
 

IFwanderer

Banned
I think that's the only logical answer. I would argue most results where the *US is split up into at least 3 dominions would be much better for the world, a result that blocked some kind of big inspiring liberal revolution in Europe pre-1810 would be bad. Most of the theoretical inspiration for movements towards justice in the World comes from the French Revolution, the ideological content of the AR was much more lightweight, Thomas Paine excepted.
I'll have to agree with this version of the answer, a world where the US looses their revolutionary war would be radically different, but there's so many butterflies that I can't say precisely that it would be better or worse without some more guidelines about the way it evolves after that. All I can say is that OP seems determined to say it would be worse if the US didn't exist.

Personally, I think it'll be mixed, some aspects will be clearly worse, some clearly better, and some more will be diferent in a way that makes it hard to see if that's good or bad.
 
I think that's the only logical answer. I would argue most results where the *US is split up into at least 3 dominions would be much better for the world, a result that blocked some kind of big inspiring liberal revolution in Europe pre-1810 would be bad. Most of the theoretical inspiration for movements towards justice in the World comes from the French Revolution, the ideological content of the AR was much more lightweight, Thomas Paine excepted.

I'm not necessarily convinced revolutions for liberalism are the best recipe for advancing lasting, liberal societies. They often either break down as the revolutions turn on themselves, scare the horses too much to cause stronger reactionary movements or lead to a lasting legacy towards violence as a legitimate solution towards political grievance. Britain, Canada, Scandinavia and Australia have ended with better functioning political systems than the US, France and Italy in my opinion.
 
Top