What if the United States of America had lost the War of Independence?

[Gatsby]

It'd be interesting to see a modern day America but with a social-democratic welfare state.

[Condottiere 40K]

Walker, Royal American Mounted Police.

[beckyolt]

Would Great Britain still be a 'superpower' today?

No, I don't think so. They'd just have tried to gain independence again a few years later.

[SLN445]

No, I don't think so. They'd just have tried to gain independence again a few years later.

If they didnt succeed the first time the second will be an even bigger failure.
The british would be stupid to allow for the type of things that would allow further attempts such as allowing for the Colonys to have their own armed military forces.

[Col. Tartleton]

Walker, Royal American Mounted Police.

I owe you a rep someday.


I think had Britain kept the Americas we'd have seen slavery gone faster and without a civil war, we'd have seen more reasonable dealings with the Amerindians and either less colonialism on the part of the British because of less need, or more colonialism because of more resources to do so. I predict that latter.

See Britain effectively controlled Canada from East to West, and the Eastern part of the continent. Spain lost control of the Mexican colonies, so Spain is out. France's control of the Louisiana Watershed is pretty much pointless at some point. I imagine Britain would wind up with it eventually, probably after a war in the negotiations. There really weren't a lot of French people in that territory, their hold was really just a claim.

So we wind up with a transcontinental territory. This would probably mitigate the Manifest destiny thing somewhat. At some point a transcontinental railroad network will be built. Thus linking the Atlantic with the Pacific. Which would I think encourage trade and colonialism. See, Canada can't really do that, because Canada is too sparsely populated. The demand of East Coast markets for West Coast trade would be a driving force. Population would spread along the rail lines westward. We'd still wind up with the Oregon trail and the various California and Yukon gold rushes. In spite of an Absolut World, I think in the end Mexico would be either slightly larger or taken over by the British. But probably the latter as I imagine the American British would be drawn into the same conflicts except for the slavery angle since that'd be gone. Except while the American republic is fine with fighting a few battles and then paying for some land, the British attitude would be consider yourself colonized. So at some point Britain controls everything north of Colombia. Though Mexico might be hard to subjugate.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

I owe you a rep someday.


I think had Britain kept the Americas we'd have seen slavery gone faster and without a civil war, we'd have seen more reasonable dealings with the Amerindians and either less colonialism on the part of the British because of less need, or more colonialism because of more resources to do so. I predict that latter.

See Britain effectively controlled Canada from East to West, and the Eastern part of the continent. Spain lost control of the Mexican colonies, so Spain is out. France's control of the Louisiana Watershed is pretty much pointless at some point. I imagine Britain would wind up with it eventually, probably after a war in the negotiations. There really weren't a lot of French people in that territory, their hold was really just a claim.

So we wind up with a transcontinental territory. This would probably mitigate the Manifest destiny thing somewhat. At some point a transcontinental railroad network will be built. Thus linking the Atlantic with the Pacific. Which would I think encourage trade and colonialism. See, Canada can't really do that, because Canada is too sparsely populated. The demand of East Coast markets for West Coast trade would be a driving force. Population would spread along the rail lines westward. We'd still wind up with the Oregon trail and the various California and Yukon gold rushes. In spite of an Absolut World, I think in the end Mexico would be either slightly larger or taken over by the British. But probably the latter as I imagine the American British would be drawn into the same conflicts except for the slavery angle since that'd be gone. Except while the American republic is fine with fighting a few battles and then paying for some land, the British attitude would be consider yourself colonized. So at some point Britain controls everything north of Colombia. Though Mexico might be hard to subjugate.

Mexico, harder to subjugate than India? I think not dear chap.

[Condottiere 40K]

Did Mexico still have anything worth economically exploiting during said period? Besides the California gold rush.

[Muunokhoi]

WW2 would have never occured due to Britians access to the industrial factories across the sea this would have placed Germany in a precarious situation so no aggressive campaign to conquer europe.

[Col. Tartleton]

Mexico, harder to subjugate than India? I think not dear chap.

Very true.

Anyhow, instead of the US surpassing the UK as a superpower, you'd probably just see a shift from Britain to UK as being the heart of the Empire, though the UK would remain it's spiritual liege.

Would a British Empire including America have turned the tide of the early war in WWI and then had the resources to prevent the communist revolution in Russia? That would be quite different. Would the war even have happened the way it did? Obviously a wars happen.

Might we have seen British Japan and British China? British Africa, British America, British Asia... British Oceania... British Antarctica... British South America... Even British Europe?

The trick of the British Empire is done correctly you wound up being the ruler of loyal subjects. Or at least enough loyal colonists that you can keep the disloyal elements quiet.

Might have been able to wing a world empire. The various European Powers would have eventually been forced into being client states due to overwhelming trade control on every ocean. So effectively they get forced into being under British "Partnership" and given time they sort of become British.

[Condottiere 40K]

Anime would be totally different if the British sent a fleet into Tokyo Bay. Or maybe not.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

Random thoughts....

It depends when the revolution was put down. If early on, Monarchist France would have been in a better position economically. The French Republicans would have been without inspiration. Perhaps the French Revolution would not have happened in the form that it did.

Perhaps there would have been a version of the American Civil War with the south rebelling from British North America after the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. During the Revolution, there was little opposition to British rule in the Deep South, but perhaps 1833 would have brought this on.

Mexico would be much larger, but maybe 19th century British Imperialism would have been more active in North America. Other than Canada's conflict with the Metis, there wasn't much activity there in real life.

[Londinium]

Random thoughts....
During the Revolution, there was little opposition to British rule in the Deep South, but perhaps 1833 would have brought this on.

Oh there was but it tended to come from those in lower social orders and was as much a case of those people being in conflict with their social superiors instead of the King. It's actually quite interesting how in the Revolution the lower classes seized upon the opportunity to attempt to ruin the large scale tidewater planters, most of whom had no problem cooperating with the British. While in the Civil War the very same poor people died in their thousands to defend a form of slavery which never made them rich, only the rich planters, and which in fact actually contributed to their poor economic situation.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

Oh there was but it tended to come from those in lower social orders and was as much a case of those people being in conflict with their social superiors instead of the King. It's actually quite interesting how in the Revolution the lower classes seized upon the opportunity to attempt to ruin the large scale tidewater planters, most of whom had no problem cooperating with the British. While in the Civil War the very same poor people died in their thousands to defend a form of slavery which never made them rich, only the rich planters, and which in fact actually contributed to their poor economic situation.

Absolutely.

But when I say "Deep South" I mean South Carolina, and Georgia (out of the original 13 colonies).

British and Loyalist forces broke the Revolutionaries quite easily in Georgia, and the state still had a Tory government at the end of the war.

In South Carolina, the British were very successful as well, aided by numerous Loyalists. But by 1781, American forces finally took the colony.

[Prosaic Visitant]

Britain would actually be something great for once.

[Londinium]

Absolutely.

But when I say "Deep South" I mean South Carolina, and Georgia (out of the original 13 colonies).

British and Loyalist forces broke the Revolutionaries quite easily in Georgia, and the state still had a Tory government at the end of the war.

In South Carolina, the British were very successful as well, aided by numerous Loyalists. But by 1781, American forces finally took the colony.

Nah the Americans were in charge of the colony (South Carolina) right up until 1780 because the British botched their initial assault on the town way back at the beginning of the war. Had the British taken the town then, the Deep South may have remained Loyal throughout the war but they didn't. Then the Brits kept control of it and Savannah (Georgia) until the end of the war. Georgia was relatively quiet and loyal after the British recaptured it but it was the youngest and one of the least populated states. However the Carolina backcountry was an entirely different matter, initially it seemed like the Brits had subdued it but after Waxhaws, King's Mountain and then Greene escaping Cornwallis and leading to the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, it slipped out of their grasp. For much of the war the backcountry was just a horrible civil war of Loyalists and Patriots indiscriminately killing each other, burning down farms and comitting atrocities while the Brits remained garrisoned in a few important towns such as Ninety Six.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

Britain would actually be something great for once.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of our massive empire that spanned 1/3 of the world and 1/4 of it's population.

[TWWolfe]

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of our massive empire that spanned 1/3 of the world and 1/4 of it's population.

Sorry, we can't see your empire because we're AMERICANS, and americans always wear dark sunglasses!

[kentuckybandit]

If they didnt succeed the first time the second will be an even bigger failure.
The british would be stupid to allow for the type of things that would allow further attempts such as allowing for the Colonys to have their own armed military forces.

Except that they would, for the very reasons they allowed it the first time. There would be a short period of garrisoning with regular troops but eventually they would have to allow the raising of militias or some kind of colonial forces; the costs in money and manpower to garrison the colonies and attempt to protect the frontier would be too much to use regular troops.

[Prosaic Visitant]

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of our massive empire that spanned 1/3 of the world and 1/4 of it's population.

I'm sorry, I should've looked at my globe and seen just how powerful the British Empire...

...no longer is.

[TWWolfe]

I'm sorry, I should've looked at my globe and seen just how powerful the British Empire...

...no longer is.

It appears you didn't notice him speaking in past tense