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

kernals12

Banned
Nah, the ideas and the right people were there. And if the American Revolution fails, then it means that France is still broke, just with nothing to show for it.
But then France's revolution still goes out of control, we still get Napoleon, and we then get the monarchy restored. Where else could Democracy rise?
 
And if the American Revolution fails, then it means that France is still broke, just with nothing to show for it.
Well, it depends on when they fail; a loss at Saratoga, for example, would likely mean no start of French aid in earnest, and could well mean the Continental Army being crushed in the north.
 
But then France's revolution still goes out of control, we still get Napoleon, and we then get the monarchy restored. Where else could Democracy rise?

Parliamentary/Constitutional Monarchies? I mean, republics aren't the only ones that can be democratic, no? So if republics don't rise, then have the monarchies transit into more democratic.

Or well, a democratic republic could still arive elsewhere...
 
Think about the underlying issues behind the US adopting a federalist republican constitution. Even if the armed struggle fails, those ideas were popular enough and they were spreading, they were bound to arise somewhere else. Maybe the Spanish America, where OTL republicanism and liberalism took hold as Spain declined, maybe France, Germany, Russia, etc.
 
The absence of the United States is not going to turn the clock back to the middle ages. Europe and the world still had other strains of liberal democratic thought, ones more radical than those proposed during the revolution in the 13 Colonies. It's not like they had a monopoly on the ideas after all, contrary to some American myths. Simply put different ideas would emerge, some perhaps more radical and tolerant than those historically. The social pressures would build up eventually as the events of 1848 showed.

It's not going to turn the clock back to the middle ages. It's going to turn the clock back to the 17th century. The Middle Ages died in the centralizing, absolutist impulses of that century and the American Revolution was a reaction to those same impulses in the new century. It discredited and shamed the king's faction in Parliament and the independent United States represented a continuous reminder to the British middle and working class that English speaking men were ruling themselves a mere ocean away through out the 19th century.

The supposition that a successful, independent, democratizing republic laying across the Atlantic from Europe had no influence whatsoever on European liberalism -- at least on a social scale -- is absolutely ludicrous. Especially, the tea-drinking cousins. Arguments about the evolution of suffrage in OTL 19th century Britain are utterly irrelevant to TTL's 19th century Britain.

EDIT: I mean, this is supposed to be a site for history nerds. Do people not know what the 17th (and 18th, kind of less, because most of the work was done in the 17th) century looked like for 'liberals' (in the loosest possible sense of those advocating for 'liberty', for at least a relatively broad class of people like lower nobility)? Every country you look at, as look deeper, you see the retreat of this 'liberty' in the face of absolutism. The Great Elector and his son crushing the Estates in Prussia. The taming of the aristocracy in France. The liberal existential horror of the Restoration in Britain. The Coup of 1772 in Sweden, the Partitions of Poland, the growth of the fiscal-military state in Britain even after the wonders of the Glorious Revolution, the decline and political ossification of the Dutch Republic, the list goes on and freaking on.

You can debate the real significance of all of this from a modern perspective (read: Not that freaking much. The groaning masses continue to suffer while their task masters bristle at having to experiencing something of the same from their own bigger fish), but THIS is the context that Enlightenment liberalism grew in. THIS is the context that the Commonwealthmen of the early 18th century wrote in, which American colonists lapped up like a dog given steak. This is WHY England/the UK had such a strong liberal streak going into the 18th century: The aristocracy and plutocracy was most successful there at resisting the authoritarian impulses of the monarchy. This is why the American colonists turned to all the same arguments and authors as the Parliamentarians in the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution: They thought the same thing was being done to them.

The American colonists/United States operated in a common ideological context with liberals in Europe. What happened in America had repercussions in Europe and what happened in Europe had repercussions in America.

The space of alternate histories is vast and our human minds are limited, but I think it's pretty fair to say that, in many possible histories, a world where the American Revolution fails is NOT a world where Europe liberalizes at the same speed or to the same extent as ours. I mean, imagine if you lived in a timeline where the French Revolution succeeded at establishing a stable, liberal French Republic that survived with full continuity down to the modern day. Would you argue that the events of our timeline, where Reaction set in and prevented democracy anywhere in Europe for half a century wasn't possible?

EDIT2: OK, so just look as close as you can at the example of the Riksdag. Sweden in 1770 looked surprisingly like the UK on a political institutional level. There was a greater degree of partisan chaos, but the king was mostly powerless and the parliament ruled the country with a relatively similar level of unquestioned authority. The mere fact that Sweden did relatively badly in a single war was enough to entirely reverse a half century of parliamentary rule and replace it with a half century of more-nearly absolutist monarchy.

While trends and historical directions certainly exist, prior to the American Revolution the trend and historical direction was distinctly illiberal.
 
Last edited:
Actually, this does raise an interesting related question -- were it not for the French Revolution of OTL, would Enlightened Absolutism remain fashionable in Europe for longer?
 
It's not going to turn the clock back to the middle ages. It's going to turn the clock back to the 17th century. The Middle Ages died in the centralizing, absolutist impulses of that century and the American Revolution was a reaction to those same impulses in the new century. It discredited and shamed the king's faction in Parliament and the independent United States represented a continuous reminder to the British middle and working class that English speaking men were ruling themselves a mere ocean away through out the 19th century.

The supposition that a successful, independent, democratizing republic laying across the Atlantic from Europe had no influence whatsoever on European liberalism -- at least on a social scale -- is absolutely ludicrous. Especially, the tea-drinking cousins. Arguments about the evolution of suffrage in OTL 19th century Britain are utterly irrelevant to TTL's 19th century Britain.

EDIT: I mean, this is supposed to be a site for history nerds. Do people not know what the 17th (and 18th, kind of less, because most of the work was done in the 17th) century looked like for 'liberals' (in the loosest possible sense of those advocating for 'liberty', for at least a relatively broad class of people like lower nobility)? Every country you look at, as look deeper, you see the retreat of this 'liberty' in the face of absolutism. The Great Elector and his son crushing the Estates in Prussia. The taming of the aristocracy in France. The liberal existential horror of the Restoration in Britain. The Coup of 1772 in Sweden, the Partitions of Poland, the growth of the fiscal-military state in Britain even after the wonders of the Glorious Revolution, the decline and political ossification of the Dutch Republic, the list goes on and freaking on.

You can debate the real significance of all of this from a modern perspective (read: Not that freaking much. The groaning masses continue to suffer while their task masters bristle at having to experiencing something of the same from their own bigger fish), but THIS is the context that Enlightenment liberalism grew in. THIS is the context that the Commonwealthmen of the early 18th century wrote in, which American colonists lapped up like a dog given steak. This is WHY England/the UK had such a strong liberal streak going into the 18th century: The aristocracy and plutocracy was most successful there at resisting the authoritarian impulses of the monarchy. This is why the American colonists turned to all the same arguments and authors as the Parliamentarians in the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution: They thought the same thing was being done to them.

The American colonists/United States operated in a common ideological context with liberals in Europe. What happened in America had repercussions in Europe and what happened in Europe had repercussions in America.
That,an international return to absolutism in the second half of the 18th century is an interesting trend you're displaying here. Never thought of it that way. Although in the case of the dutch republic, i see where you getting at, i must point that there was no absolutism to return to. Also the patriot movement turned itself not only against stadtholder Willem V and it's adherents, but also against the elites of the olicharchy that ruled in the period before 1747.

Nobody denies the accelerant influence of the American Revolution. Thinkers and activists in Europe saw it as a great source of inspiration. In my view they saw (some of) their already existing idees coming to life overthere. Most critiques in this thread are against the exclusive claim on liberal thought from the anglo-saxon world. As i stated before the roots of liberal thought are older. Jonathan Israel sees Spinoza as one of the first sources (especially for division of religion and state). There are also historians who see thoughts in the jansenistic movement as an influence in the french revolution.
 
It's not going to turn the clock back to the middle ages. It's going to turn the clock back to the 17th century. The Middle Ages died in the centralizing, absolutist impulses of that century and the American Revolution was a reaction to those same impulses in the new century. It discredited and shamed the king's faction in Parliament and the independent United States represented a continuous reminder to the British middle and working class that English speaking men were ruling themselves a mere ocean away through out the 19th century.

The supposition that a successful, independent, democratizing republic laying across the Atlantic from Europe had no influence whatsoever on European liberalism -- at least on a social scale -- is absolutely ludicrous. Especially, the tea-drinking cousins. Arguments about the evolution of suffrage in OTL 19th century Britain are utterly irrelevant to TTL's 19th century Britain.

The supposition it had no effect is indeed ludicrous, but to say it somehow sped up European liberalism (or indeed its absence would retard its progress significantly) is equally ludicrous.

The death knell of religiously inspired absolutism in the English speaking world sounded when Parliament chopped off Charles's head in 1649, and after that you'd be hard pressed to find a British monarch who was able to bend Parliament in a way it didn't desire, putting real checks and balances against royal power. That is the foundation of constitutional liberalism, which protects the people from the powers of government. That is what led to much of the Reform inspired ideas in Britain (that and the specter of France's bloody revolution), whether it be the basis for the expansion of the vote or the reforms of the House of Commons. It is safe to say that American republicanism had little to do with that.

EDIT: I mean, this is supposed to be a site for history nerds. Do people not know what the 17th (and 18th, kind of less, because most of the work was done in the 17th) century looked like for 'liberals' (in the loosest possible sense of those advocating for 'liberty', for at least a relatively broad class of people like lower nobility)? Every country you look at, as look deeper, you see the retreat of this 'liberty' in the face of absolutism. The Great Elector and his son crushing the Estates in Prussia. The taming of the aristocracy in France. The liberal existential horror of the Restoration in Britain. The Coup of 1772 in Sweden, the Partitions of Poland, the growth of the fiscal-military state in Britain even after the wonders of the Glorious Revolution, the decline and political ossification of the Dutch Republic, the list goes on and freaking on.

You can debate the real significance of all of this from a modern perspective (read: Not that freaking much. The groaning masses continue to suffer while their task masters bristle at having to experiencing something of the same from their own bigger fish), but THIS is the context that Enlightenment liberalism grew in. THIS is the context that the Commonwealthmen of the early 18th century wrote in, which American colonists lapped up like a dog given steak. This is WHY England/the UK had such a strong liberal streak going into the 18th century: The aristocracy and plutocracy was most successful there at resisting the authoritarian impulses of the monarchy. This is why the American colonists turned to all the same arguments and authors as the Parliamentarians in the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution: They thought the same thing was being done to them.

The American colonists/United States operated in a common ideological context with liberals in Europe. What happened in America had repercussions in Europe and what happened in Europe had repercussions in America.

The space of alternate histories is vast and our human minds are limited, but I think it's pretty fair to say that, in many possible histories, a world where the American Revolution fails is NOT a world where Europe liberalizes at the same speed or to the same extent as ours. I mean, imagine if you lived in a timeline where the French Revolution succeeded at establishing a stable, liberal French Republic that survived with full continuity down to the modern day. Would you argue that the events of our timeline, where Reaction set in and prevented democracy anywhere in Europe for half a century wasn't possible?

EDIT2: OK, so just look as close as you can at the example of the Riksdag. Sweden in 1770 looked surprisingly like the UK on a political institutional level. There was a greater degree of partisan chaos, but the king was mostly powerless and the parliament ruled the country with a relatively similar level of unquestioned authority. The mere fact that Sweden did relatively badly in a single war was enough to entirely reverse a half century of parliamentary rule and replace it with a half century of more-nearly absolutist monarchy.

While trends and historical directions certainly exist, prior to the American Revolution the trend and historical direction was distinctly illiberal.

This is perhaps where we differ in the understanding of "liberalism" as it were. Liberals in Europe were not all republicans, and a good case against republicanism could have been made by any liberal in Europe until about 1918. Liberalism isn't just the ideas espoused by the American Constitution, but those by Pitt the Elder or Lord John Russell or any of the Reform minded actors in British society. Even Napoleon could be called sufficiently liberal with his creation of the Code Napoleon (which influences so much law today) save for his imperial tendencies. It is a serious mistake to assume that liberalism is only liberalism in the context of republicanism, which is a mistake people seem to make often.

However, it is important to note that even with the American Republic right across the ocean, there wasn't a rush by anyone to adopt its premises or practices. The Central and South American revolutions owed more to Napoleon than they did to the United States, and Brazil opted to choose the constitutional monarch principle. The reformation of the powers in Europe was slow, but gradual, and more often than not, bloody. However, it should be stressed that this owes far more to the French Revolution than the American one.

In that sense it is exceedingly important to realize that the existence of the United States is not as important to the development of liberal freedoms as is supposed by either the OP, or by many American thinkers themselves. As you point out, the roots went way back, but are not exclusive to the American continent. Even the examples of the fall of liberal institutions across Europe still held counterweights in Britain where Parliament remained strong, and the monarch was being slowly clipped of their powers.

More to the point, the social stresses and philisophic underpinnings of liberal reform will still exist and without the French Revolution (and Napoleon) they may come later, but there's every possibility they could be just as liberal and democratic as the American Revolution was and the French tried to be. Though I think its safe to say without the three decades of war endeared by Revolutionary France and Napoleon, knee jerk reactionary policies just might not be the go to response of the crowned heads of Europe to stirrings of reform.
 
I don't know. Basic answer is that there would be so many butterflies no one could tell for sure. That said I don't think the ARW was all that important to the development of democracy and liberalism. Granted a lot of other democracies would style themselves after the US, the ideals shared and the traditions started were not uncommon. For a long time before the ARW there were already ideas on the power via election instead of right, constitutions and free markets.

If it didn't happen it would likely be one of the South American countries. If the French Revolution were still to happen you'd see most of these ideals still come into existence.

The real question is whether the FR would still happen if the ARW didn't happen? A lot of people do blame the King spending so much to support the Americans, causing the economic problems that would later befall France and see FR happen.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I don't know. Basic answer is that there would be so many butterflies no one could tell for sure. That said I don't think the ARW was all that important to the development of democracy and liberalism. Granted a lot of other democracies would style themselves after the US, the ideals shared and the traditions started were not uncommon. For a long time before the ARW there were already ideas on the power via election instead of right, constitutions and free markets.
The problem is that various Asian independent movements later IOTL were inspired by ARW. Continuing colonial rules, either formal or informal, would turn Asia into a complete sh*thole.
 
The problem is that various Asian independent movements later IOTL were inspired by ARW. Continuing colonial rules, either formal or informal, would turn Asia into a complete sh*thole.
Again one of the inspirations. Another major one was f.i. Japan's victory over the russians in 1905. The ARW was even a bit problematic as inspiration source for some as it was a 'whiteman's' revolution in their eyes.
 
The problem is that various Asian independent movements later IOTL were inspired by ARW. Continuing colonial rules, either formal or informal, would turn Asia into a complete sh*thole.
And in the absence of OTL ARW they could be inspired by the ATL Bloodless Revolutions of 1825 in the HRE.
You're being disingenuous in assuming the ARW as the only viable source of liberalism.
Especially as so many posters here have highlighted nonamerican sources in their posts.
 
Unpopular opinion, yes.
I just love these short but definitive answers that have absolutely nothing backing them up...

I have to go along with the 'hard to say, so many butterflies' idea. It really comes down to 'just what does Britain do with the place afterwards?'. Do they restrict immigration or open up the gates? Do they try to expand westwards and eventually clash with Spain/Mexico/France? Do they try to take over the LA territory? Do they try to make and actually hold treaties with the natives, or brush them out of the way later? What are their relations with Latin America, and the new nations that arise there later on?
 
That,an international return to absolutism in the second half of the 18th century is an interesting trend you're displaying here. Never thought of it that way. Although in the case of the dutch republic, i see where you getting at, i must point that there was no absolutism to return to. Also the patriot movement turned itself not only against stadtholder Willem V and it's adherents, but also against the elites of the olicharchy that ruled in the period before 1747.

Nobody denies the accelerant influence of the American Revolution. Thinkers and activists in Europe saw it as a great source of inspiration. In my view they saw (some of) their already existing idees coming to life overthere. Most critiques in this thread are against the exclusive claim on liberal thought from the anglo-saxon world. As i stated before the roots of liberal thought are older. Jonathan Israel sees Spinoza as one of the first sources (especially for division of religion and state). There are also historians who see thoughts in the jansenistic movement as an influence in the french revolution.

The problems in the Dutch Republic weren't a return to absolutism, but rather the domination of a corrupt, plutocratic elite over the Republic's institutions. Absolutism wasn't disliked in the 18th century because it was absolutism, but rather because it was seen as a fount of corruption, the real Public Enemy Number One of Enlightenment liberalism.

The roots of liberalism are indeed ancient. They reach right back into at least an idealized view of the Classical world. But that should be telling: Liberalism as an idea was around, evolving, for a very, very long time before it ended up having significant social and political effects. Its success was very contingent and I would argue an important supporting contingency was the ideological effects of a successful American Revolution and American republic.

I mean, one of the favorites of naive alt-history on the survival of the First British Empire is that the *United States becomes something like a really big Canada. But that entirely ignores the massive effect the loss of most of the Empire in North America had on British views on how to manage the settler colonies! The evolution of thought that led to the Dominions is directly rooted in that learning experience!

The same kinds of effects are going to be seen elsewhere. They'll be strongest in the UK (common language, common culture, a distinct view of family identity), but they will have some influence everywhere.

What I'm positing isn't that liberalism will die forever without a successful ARW, but I am saying that most timelines where it fails will see Reaction dealt a much stronger hand than IOTL.
 
The death knell of religiously inspired absolutism in the English speaking world sounded when Parliament chopped off Charles's head in 1649, and after that you'd be hard pressed to find a British monarch who was able to bend Parliament in a way it didn't desire, putting real checks and balances against royal power. That is the foundation of constitutional liberalism, which protects the people from the powers of government. That is what led to much of the Reform inspired ideas in Britain (that and the specter of France's bloody revolution), whether it be the basis for the expansion of the vote or the reforms of the House of Commons. It is safe to say that American republicanism had little to do with that.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to push back. You caveated this with "Religious absolutism," but would you really argue that between 1770 and 1830, Europe became freer overall? Where? Not in England, where suffrage wasn't expanded until 1832. In Prussia? Austria, with its secret police?

However, it is important to note that even with the American Republic right across the ocean, there wasn't a rush by anyone to adopt its premises or practices.

The United States of Belgium adopted the Articles of the Confederation.
 
I mean, one of the favorites of naive alt-history on the survival of the First British Empire is that the *United States becomes something like a really big Canada. But that entirely ignores the massive effect the loss of most of the Empire in North America had on British views on how to manage the settler colonies! The evolution of thought that led to the Dominions is directly rooted in that learning experience!
.

I have my issues with LTTW, but I do like how British North America is perversely poorer and less important than OTL America as a result of it.
 
I'm sorry, but I'm going to push back. You caveated this with "Religious absolutism," but would you really argue that between 1770 and 1830, Europe became freer overall? Where? Not in England, where suffrage wasn't expanded until 1832. In Prussia? Austria, with its secret police?
Economic: definitely. No more guilds, in great parts the peasants were freed from feudal obligations (they became tennants) religiously: very slightly. Minorities were less treated as suspicious possible traitors and more as citizens (though still not equal) Restauration-monarchs tried though to get a grip on the church organisation, so stil no complete separation of state and religion. Politicaly: after the restauration there came at least in some countries a constitution. In practice they were almost worthless, but it was a start. Also in this period the judiciary was reformed under the french occupation. And some of these measures weren't undone after.
So overall: Yes.
 
Top