Plus, we probably would not have Texas today.
I'm sold, provided we get Austin 
Parliament might have learned that crushing dissent with overwhelming military force is the best course of action - why cut Canada (and later other colonies/dominions) a sweet deal if you can just send in the red coats. After all, the last time the crown negotiated with the rebels it just encouraged them.
Part of the reason the British took the relatively hard line course they did was to avoid having to deal with the precedent of even limited self government. If the Americans get it so will the Caribbean and (God help us) Ireland.
Having met a few Brits who swam in some watery political area between pan-Africanism and Mosleyite anti-semitism, I'd say Hitler would have taken the cake. Or perhaps earlier, the famous British attitude towards the unwashed, honed in defeating the American rebels, would have tilted the peninsular war in favor of Napoleon.
It's all too much of a stretch anyway.
Although it might be said Britain had anticipated and was ready to accept a momentary imperial setback while they dealt with their apeshit king.
I neglected to mention that this site kicks ass. Thank you for letting me drunk-comment.
Especially the Steel Mill photograph. Rockwell Kent, anyone? The group of seven?
Not too long ago, I read 'Age of Gold' about the effect that the discovery of gold in California had on everything. Helped the North win the Civil War, among many other things. It was a frenzy that drew in the world -- first the Australians, Chinese, South Americans; then the Europeans and Eastern Americans. The book argues that California Gold, and Nevada Silver is what drove the US economic engine into insanely high gear.
I wonder how all that would've played out under a British Colonies. Seems to me that it'd be MUCH LESS likely that the US becomes a free nation in 1867, what with all that gold pouring into the British coffers starting in 1850.
Not that the discovery would've happened the way it did.
When the discovery happened, Mexico was going through it's own thing. I can't remember the details, but I'm pretty sure that it was free from Spain. It was pulling back from California. Would it have stuck around, and would Mexico have ended up the economic powerhouse in North America?
Fun alternate universes.
First, I want to point that I fully support drunk commenting.
As far as Mexico and California goes, it's really hard to even predict. Mexico had such a weak presence in California that it's hard to know when they would have discovered the gold. Plus, one might think the British or Russians would have moved into the gap that the Spanish left after Latin American gained independence. It's clearly possible that northern Mexico would have been taken by some other power.
Had Mexico discovered the gold, maybe they would have become a powerhouse. It depends on a lot. Would the Euro powers have moved in then? How close would European settlment coming from the East have been in 1848 without a United States? Would Mexico have had the resources to exploit the gold?
Interesting questions to ponder though.
If you want to see an interesting take on the "what if the British" had won, take a look at the book "The Two Georges" by Harry Turtledove and Richard Dreyfuss (yes the actor) its not a bad book, and agrees with most of what you've laid out here with a few interesting difference. Its a lot of fun.
What's so bad about being different than every other country in the world? We don't have oppressive socialism and the onerous taxes and nanny regulations that come with it. We don't ban words or thoughts in a misguided attempt to pretend history didn't happen. You say we'd still have the Declaration but we wouldn't because a defeat would've rendered it a huge joke.
In short I fail to see how an experiment in individual sovereignty and liberty, regardless of how painful the experiment might be, can be considered a bad thing.
"Let's say the American Revolution fails. What happens?
We are Canada.
Is that so bad? I don't think so."
go there, then. don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
i have no desire to see america become a socialist/communist nation like the democrats want us to be.
it's not the government's job to provide us with health care. it's not the government's job to provide us with "things".
life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.
Just one hole to poke, otherwise a well-reasoned argument.
The poke: The Civil War was a war of economics, not a war to protect slavery. Southern leaders wanted freedom to trade with whomever they wished, not just thosed sanctioned by the Federal government. Slavery was key, but not the most important factor, by far.
First, the Civil War was absolutely a war to protect slavery. There is no evidence to refute that. All you have to do is read the words of the South written in 1861.
Second, good to see some wingnuts on the site. Nothing like crazy right-wing lunatics.
for the record, Canada practices a from of capitalism called "Free Enterprise" where each and every Canadian is allowed to "pursue" their happiness the same as any American. The "socialist/communist" practice that Nokx alludes to doesn't exist north of the 49th. Perhaps it's true that Canada has government insured healthcare, but DOES NOT have a government provided system.
another point to clear up...while it is true that Canada technically became a sovereign nation in 1867, it did not make its own foreign relations and trade pacts and treaties until 1937 when London ceded control over her former Dominions in Canada, Australia and elsewhere through the signing of the Treaty of Westminster.
and finally...I fail to understand why Americans like Nokx are so afraid of actually helping one another in a free country? If someone is in genuine need, why not use the resources of government to protect the most vulnerable in society. Here in Canada (and in other parts of the world) the drive for the almighty dollar (a steadily weakening dollar, at that) takes a back-seat to making sure that everyone has at least the minimums necessary for survival. the "survival of the fittest" attitude that Nokx and others like him espouse is what contributes to the further degredation of the equality in society in the US, which leads to internal conflict and, eventually, to another civil war, which will be waged between the rich and the poor once again, but when the enemy is yourself, it is much harder to win that war.
Eh.
OK, I'm questioning your patriotism. You seem to me to be a fine example of an unpatriotic sort of guy.
There. I said it.
er.. Maybe we would be like Australia, a country MORE right-wing than the US. Liberal faggots get to traction there.
Here is indisputable proof that separates the intelligence differences between Bush voters and Kerry voters in 2004.
What about the Constitution? What about the Bill of Rights? The UK has no law as protective of free speech as the 1st Amendment. What about establishment of the most free and prosperous country ever?
We have our problems, notably the waves of devout religion to which you allude but we are getting over those as we have gotten over other problems in the past. I don't think you can reasonably argue that the world needs another Canada more than we need the United States.
It really does make you wonder! I mean, Europe has eliminated poverty, the division between the have and have nots, and their people are given a completely equal voice, regardless of whether you're a schlub working a regular 9-5 job or a Minister working for the EU. Why haven't we?
Why hasn't American been able to adopt a more egalitarian system of welfare? I know I personally would be more than willing to pay 60% of my income in taxes for the privelege of waiting in line for months for a hip replacement, while a transexual can get a sex change whenever he wants.
Clearly, it is no doubted related to the fact that America is filled only with capitalistic rich white guys who pine for the old days of slavery, while giving away 50 billion dollars to charity to help developing countries. Who do they think they are, those men who single handedly give more to charity than any country in the world? That money is tainted! It was just made plundering poor countries, off the back of the worker, who is forced to give up his vacation time, simply because he chooses to!
If only we had lost the Revolution. There would've been no ill consequences at all! We only fought because of some inflated sense of self-importance! Hell, the document that started it all, the Declaration of Independence, wouldn't have even been destroyed after its creator was hanged for being a traitor. The British would've prized it as much as we do-no MORE! No doubt they would've framed it. And not in some horrible plastic frame either, it would've been an environmentally sound, bio-degradable frame.
Just look at the Kyoto Treaty today. Maybe President Clinton didn't think it was good enough to sign, but that doesn't mean the Europeans hesitated even one moment! That none of the signatories actually met their pollution goals is just propaganda, designed to showcase their hypocrisy. Well, what about American hypocrisy? That's obviously a worse kind of hypocrisy-it's AMERICAN after all!
Even the Natives would've won out! The British aren't like the French. No, the French had that French-Indian War! (Britain was clearly uninvolved or it would've been called the French-British-Indian War.)
Oh well. You know what they say ... fiction can be fun! Perhaps some day our dreams of utopia can come true, and we can live in a world where there is only one choice: the government-mandated correct choice.
Your casual racism and bigotry is hilarious Erik, keep it up.
Erik knows he is no match for a sane, right-wing person in a debate. Hence, he hurls general insults.
But he knows that he loses the debate with a logical person each time. tee hee.
The Declaration of Independence would still be around? That treasonous document?! It, and everyone associated with it, would have been erased from existence. And why would have the result been Canada? With all its raw materials, it's just as likely that it could have become another Indian Raj, with all the fine economic and race relations which that engendered. And the discovery of gold by the most powerful nation on earth, on whose empire the sun never set, could easily have led to the conquest and Rajification of most of Mexico.
Your assumption that it would have necessarily led to the current Canada is, politely, naive.
there was hostility between the north and south long before the civil war. all those idiots who say the south caused that war, need to study the nullification crisis. the immortal words of robert e lee describe the conflict best, "a true union should not have to be held together by the point of a bayonet". northern radicals, an overbearing federal government, and an incompetant/prideful president started that illegal war.
Just waiting with baded breath for your follow up "Was WWII Bad for Democracy?"
Let's say Democratic nations failed in WWII. What happens?
We are Germany.
Is that so bad? I don't think so.
Sure, the Nazi's would have executed Rosevelt, Churchill, and a few million more jews. That would have been terrible. But what happens after that?
Didn't both Canada and Australia vote in right-wing leaders?
For that matter, didn't Germany and France?
progressives are "true" patriots.
I'm sure England still has room for you, fuckstick.
LOL, INTERNET DEBATE
facepalm.jpg
First, the British did capture two signers of the Declaration of Independence. The British did not hang them. Second, all that tired old "evil white men" rubbish is just so, well, Germaine Greerish. You are lost somewhere back there in the last century, Eric. Third, most of the America bashers I have known have two traits in common: They live on the government's dime, usually as teachers, academics, welfare cheats, puplic employees, etc. And despite making a cottage industry of denigrating there own country, they never, never, never leave it. Lew
you are an idiot. What a ridiculous post, based on nothing but speculation as you have very slim knowledge of a actual history.
As I commented on the reichwingfascist blog that I saw this post on:
Seriously, the best argument for isolationism is to wipe the patronizing frown off the faces of people who theorize about stuff like this. Let's see, what would happen to "the sort of social democracies" if the United States only sent out its military to protect its trade convoys?
Oh right, then the "social democracies" would be engulfed in apocalyptic bloodshed (again) and the United States would either have to renounce our humanity or come to the rescue (again), only this time the Democrats would be on board (again) because since everyone's already dead we would have the moral high ground (again).
This is like a child asking why mommy and daddy don't like to go outside and play.
Perhaps you should study American history a little more. It was the Southern states, not the Northern ones, that wanted slaves to be counted as whole citizens, not the 1/2 that the north wanted and not the 4/5th that was finally agreed upon.
It was the tariff's on the exports of the South being sent to support the North, that created the War of Northern Aggression. It was the North, not the South, that initiated every battle in the first six months of the war and it was Lincoln who went back on his word to the South.
It seems that bashing the South has become a hobby for people of your ilk. It only shows that your grasp of actual history is not at a first grade level.
As far as Texas, the more I see of the politicans of the North who belong to the New Socialist Democratic Party of America, the more I think Texas should withdraw from the union again. Perhaps when you can no longer get a nice juicy steak, have no cotton for your designer jeans, run out of gas or are forced to buy every gallon from the Middle East, you will have a greater appreciation for a state that has contributed so much to the nation. But I doubt it.
You just don't seem to have that much intellect.
I was born and raised in the South, and I can tell you if any adult human being believes the Civil War wasn't brought on by the childish Southern inclination to violence and the tawdry ecumenical justifications for slavery, they've never been here, or their heads are stuffed so far up their ass their brains are withered from oxygen deprivation.
I've heard G.I.'s who served in the occupation forces in Germany talk about the bars filled with smug former SS crap, and it's just like the little rube shitkicker palaces down here.
Lee was a calculating, smarmy traitor with a mommy complex. Fuck him and that premature Alzheimer's case Jackson.
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I ever read. Where do I go to get my refund?
Erik,
That was brilliant. Next time, could you enlighten us regarding what federal interest rates would be like had the dinosaurs survived?
Eric:
To the extent you were serious, I've posted a rebuttal on the merits.
The French Revolution and its accompanying philosophies affected the ideas and attitudes of thinkers around the world nuch more than the words of the American Revolution's Tom Paine and Thomas Jefferson.
If the revolutionary war had been lost to the British, what would be missing from the body politic for the past 250 years would have been the notion of self-determinism and individualism so bally-hooed in the land of the free, but actually surpressed by every US President, Congress, and business leader since 1804. Instead, the French communitarian ideal would probably spread further and influenced far more many people than America's notions of democracy and freedom.
American Revolutionary War had bad and good sides of it. You can argue “Was this war worth it or not?” I will try to find out from resources was it worth it or not.
The American Revolution refers to the period during the last half of the 18th century. When thirteen colonies gained independence from Britain and created new United Nation called United States of America. This, of course, was a good thing about war.
The American Revolution included a progression of broad intellectual and social shifts that took place in the early American society, such as the new republican principles that took hold in the American population. In some colonies, sharp political debates broke out over the role of democracy in government. The American shift to republicanism, as well as the gradually growing democracy, caused a disturbance of the traditional social hierarchy, and created the ethic that formed the main of American political values.
After American Revolution thus came the widespread claim of liberty, individual rights, equality and hostility toward corruption which would prove core values of republicanism to Americans. Then some countries recognized independence of the United States of America. Morocco was the first country recognized the independence from Great Britain in 1777.
Of course that war had bad sides too. In every war die people and this war wasn’t an exception. Some people died. The “bloodiest” war in the American Revolution was at Long Island, led by George Washington, where 300 people were killed and 700 were wounded.
Secondly when Declaration of Independence was signed they took out slavery part, because South wouldn’t join them in the war against Britain and even people who signed the Declaration of Independence owned slaves. So slavery stood longer.
Commenting by HaloScan
