The United States of Belgium adopted the Articles of the Confederation.
Wait. What? Seriously?
The United States of Belgium adopted the Articles of the Confederation.
I mean, the United States of Belgium (or the United Belgian States) wasn't a tell?Wait. What? Seriously?
I mean, the United States of Belgium (or the United Belgian States) wasn't a tell?
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.
My main doubt was that it was you saying it, if I'm to be honest.
You write as if examples, substantial ones, outside of Europe even mattered that much to European movements.If the American Revolution fails, what's the example for liberalism and democracy to turn to? Poland?
You write as if examples, substantial ones, outside of Europe even mattered that much to European movements.
Your definition of "support" and "substantial" would definitely be different from mine.Except as I pointed out earlier, the American Revolution did matter to European movements. Do you want more support for this? There's tons.
Close enough, I'd say.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.
A *French Revolution in that ATL could well end up being less bloody, or alternatively, kick-start a chain of revolutions that end up resulting in the establishment of democratic states (successful 1848, anyone?). And it doesn't need to be liberal, it can be a redder shade of democracy.There's a middle ground between "The boot of a Hannoverian on the face of mankind forever" and "America saved freedom." If the American Revolution fails, what's the example for liberalism and democracy to turn to? Poland? The Dutch Republic? Britain, which was turning back towards absolutism?
Okay, say we get a French Revolution. "So sure, the one time the western world tried a republic it led to a warmonger emperor, but that was a fluke."
I'm pretty sure this one's more accurate. At least for the people who don't live in the US, Canada and EU countries, so yeah, for most of the world (the 6.5 billion people who don't live in any of those three locations), it's likely the world would be better off.The short answer is yes, the world would be better off without the United States, but as is always the case, the precise POD here matters.
Britain controlling the whole of North America would lead to stronger, not weaker colonialism in Africa and Asia.A *French Revolution in that ATL could well end up being less bloody, or alternatively, kick-start a chain of revolutions that end up resulting in the establishment of democratic states (successful 1848, anyone?). And it doesn't need to be liberal, it can be a redder shade of democracy.
Alternatively, Europe goes to hell in a way that averts Scramble for Africa, stalls the encroachment of colonialism in Asia and more or less cuts out America from the mother countries (well, maybe the UK gets to hold onto their colonies, so as to not fuck with the "no US world" but most of America is functionally free). That would probably be a better world for everyone not in Europe.
I voted "no" because I believe the US does/has done more harm than good as it currently exists (that is not to say other countries like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union or the British empire, to take obvious examples, haven't been even worse, of course). And even if the thread derailed into a liberalism discussion, that isn't the only, or even the most relevant thing the US has done in human history.The funny thing is that almost everyone who voted "no" likely did so because they think the US isn't liberal enough--but the whole reason they have that opinion in the first place is because the American Revolution succeeded, validating liberalism as a political philosophy and pivotally affecting the last 250 years of political thought.
If they have a reason to colonize it, and aren't busy with holding rebellious colonies in North America while the rest of Europe is on fire, sure. In that case just let North America go free by way of the UK collapsing, the point was that a worst case scenario for Europe would end up benefiting all of OTL's victims of colonialism, and thus it would necessarily be a better world.Britain controlling the whole* of North America would lead to stronger, not weaker colonialism in Africa and Asia.
Right. I'm just pointing out the irony of many of the people who are voting no because they see the US as not liberal enough. If the ARW failed, it decreases the chances of liberalism prevailing over absolutism and reactionary aristocracy and even if it does, doesn't guarantee that it evolves in the same way.And even if the thread derailed into a liberalism discussion, that isn't the only, or even the most relevant thing the US has done in human history.
Well, even if we completely ignore the human cost in Europe itself, plenty of worst case scenarios for Europe are worse than OTL for the rest of the world; e.g. one empire conquering/enslaving the rest of Europe, which then gives it the resources and geopolitical ability to do so on other continents. Or nuclear war which leads to mass famine worldwide. Or mass pandemic which destroys the entire world's population.If they have a reason to colonize it, and aren't busy with holding rebellious colonies in North America while the rest of Europe is on fire, sure. In that case just let North America go free by way of the UK collapsing, the point was that a worst case scenario for Europe would end up benefiting all of OTL's victims of colonialism, and thus it would necessarily be a better world.
The northern territories that Mexico ceded only had a Mexican population of about 80,000, and as part of the US had a minimal non-native population outside of California until the late 19th century. Now the US has done plenty of bad things for the stability and prosperity of Mexico, but if you're talking about territorial losses, Britain not having annexed the Mexican Cession like the US did (which isn't certain, how do we know the British don't try to annex the territory during an ATL California Gold Rush, or something like the French Intervention in Mexico?) is a pretty minimal factor in whether Mexico would be a prosperous country or not. (The Mexican Cession of course, ended horribly for Native Americans, though.)*You forget Mexico.
Well, Asia had lots of materials that the Europeans want. Britain would continue to expand in India, Malaya and even Burma. But France would have a greater presence here, and French colonial rule IOTL was even worse than the Brits.If they have a reason to colonize it, and aren't busy with holding rebellious colonies in North America while the rest of Europe is on fire, sure. In that case just let North America go free by way of the UK collapsing, the point was that a worst case scenario for Europe would end up benefiting all of OTL's victims of colonialism, and thus it would necessarily be a better world.
The northern territories that Mexico ceded only had a Mexican population of about 80,000, and as part of the US had a minimal non-native population outside of California until the late 19th century. Now the US has done plenty of bad things for the stability and prosperity of Mexico, but if you're talking about territorial losses, Britain not having annexed the Mexican Cession like the US did (which isn't certain, how do we know the British don't try to annex the territory during an ATL California Gold Rush, or something like the French Intervention in Mexico?) is a pretty minimal factor in whether Mexico would be a prosperous country or not. (The Mexican Cession of course, ended horribly for Native Americans, though.)
Yeah, even the US existing wouldn't necessarily mean that Mexico gives up its northern territories. Plus, there's even the (only somewhat likely) ATL possibility where the US and Mexico start out as staunch allies against Spain.To be fair, butterflies can go either way. Even OTL!Mexico had the chance. They blew it, of course, but it wasn't an absolute thing.
Funny, because they don't seem to mind American medicine, technology, aid, universities, trade, finance, food, emigration opportunities, and products. It would also seem that there is a direct link between a countries closeness to the US (European or otherwise) and level of wealth, with the countries that take to America doing the best and those that turn farthest from America doing the worst.I'm pretty sure this one's more accurate. At least for the people who don't live in the US, Canada and EU countries, so yeah, for most of the world (the 6.5 billion people who don't live in any of those three locations), it's likely the world would be better off.
Holy fuck... Please get some basic reading on Colonialism and it's effects before coming back. You can start here.It would also seem that there is a direct link between a countries closeness to the US (European or otherwise) and level of wealth, with the countries that take to America doing the best and those that turn farthest from America doing the worst.
Context here is Europe on fire due to revolutions everywhere simultaneously, and I stipulated a "let's let Britain attempt to hold on to their colonies in the US, which are still being rebellious as fuck, especially if they see the rest of the continent being pretty much free, on paper at least. That wouldn't be a good scenario for them to expand their colonies, given they'd be too busy dealing with the ones they already have and with internal rebellions too.Well, Asia had lots of materials that the Europeans want. Britain would continue to expand in India, Malaya and even Burma. But France would have a greater presence here, and French colonial rule IOTL was even worse than the Brits.