"What if America had lost the Revolution?" Topic

"In the 2000 movie "The Patriot," set in 1776, an American colonial landowner named Benjamin Martin, portrayed by Mel Gibson, reluctantly joins the rebellion against the British Crown after one of his sons is arrested as a spy by British forces and threatened with execution. For his trouble, Martin's home is burned, two of his sons are killed, and he nearly loses his own life in hand-to-hand combat against a brutally sociopathic British officer named Tavington. Fortunately, by luck as much as by skill, Martin manages to survive and kills his antagonist with a desperate thrust of his bayonet. Then he goes on to fight for the Continental Army, which defeats the British at Yorktown to win independence, and eventually returns home to resume his life [source: Mitchell].

Though fictional, "The Patriot" has a strong element of truth, in that it gives a sense of just how much courage it took for the colonists to rebel against the awesome might of the British Empire -- and how lucky they were to eke out a victory. As the historian David McCullough noted in his book "1776," the Americans suffered terrible losses -- about 25,000 casualties, or roughly one percent of the colonial population. That would be the equivalent of a modern war claiming more than 3 million U.S. lives. "To those who had been with Washington and who knew what a close call it was at the beginning … the outcome seemed little short of a miracle," he wrote [source: McCullough]…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

We'd still be speaking with bloody, silly accents, I suppose, AND perhaps tea would be the national drink, instead of coffee.

Brigadier General Sir Robert E. Lee would have led a charge at Balaclava, and a Transatlatic Tunnel would have been built, Hurrah!

Interesting but I think wrong I don't think the British Government would have turned the colonies into some famine rived place. They would have punished the leaders, but after that, I think they would have been looking to placate expand the colonies and seeing them as a productive part of the empire and commerce is/was the backbone and as struggling punished starving US isnt good business. As for the US – Mexican war of course that would have happened the Anglo-Mexican war, Britain was in the 1840s expanding sometimes under the smallest of reasons so Texas wanting to be part of the empire would have sparked our intervention. Slavery was banned in places pre 1840s in the UK so I suspect it would have been banned and poss led to the civil war the British Empire against the south

As for the Mexican war:
- It could only happen in our world because the Louisiana Purchase gave the US a border with Mexico. Would France have ever sold Louisiana to Britain? Unlikely, I think. Lost it as a result of the Napoleonic Wars, maybe?
- Without the example of the American Revolution, would there have been a sovereign Mexico? It would require significant changes to events in Europe, I'd have thought, to justify an Anglo-Spanish colonial war in the 1840s.

"We'd still be speaking with bloody, silly accents "

You think they"ve changed much?

Actually I understand that what we consider the English accent is post revolution and that the English actually sounded like our mid-atlantic speakers. It was after and because of losing the revolution that George III encouraged a different type of accent so that the English and colonists would be more easily told apart.

Thus, Americans havent changed and it's the English who have the newer accent.

George III encouraged a different type of accent

I'd like to know more. Where to look?

'The Patriot" has a strong element of truth in it?

About as historical as "Braveheart" I'd have thought.

Absolutely correct. Both are movies and not historical fact.

I have heard the same sort of thing about "English" accents that what is now known as an English accent was not the same during the Revolution. Had not heard the part about George III though. Can anyone shed more light on this?

Everything I've read/heard suggests that Americans sounded
more like Brits in the 18th century. Note how people wrote at the time.

Of course it would depend on which part of England they came from. Someone from Yorkshire or Liverpool might not sound the same as someone from Plymouth or Dover or Hartlepool. Scots,Irish,tec..,Variations,just like we have here now in North America.

On speech patterns, read the appropriate sections of David Hackett Fisher's "Albion's Seed." Frequently, American regional accents and odd word choices are British dialects which have since gone extinct in the home country. True especially of New England (East Anglia) and of the Tidewater south (Wessex.) But a lot of northern English dialect came over with the Scots-Irish. You find all sorts of convoluted explanations for "hoosier" for instance, but it's an old northern English word for someone who's large but a bit on the clumsy side.

I suspect that MiniPigs is right at least to a degree: at one point the "mid-Atlantic" speech of Philadelphia and New York would have closely resembled that of London. That's the usual pattern for colonies of mixed regional origins. But you'd need a real specialist to say how far each has deviated from that, and how would even an expert prove his case?

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Has anyone in the USA ever been to their very own Tangier island ? Where everyone still has the British accent link

And noone could understand Sam Houston due to his heavy Scottish/Irish accent . I have not yet seen a movie where he was given this .

Gordon wouldn't have died at Khartoum, but at the Little Big Horn…

Ha!Ha!….

Amicalement
Armand

"It was after and because of losing the revolution that George III encouraged a different type of accent so that the English and colonists would be more easily told apart."

I think King George had other things on his mind.

The "prequel" to Vietnam – no doubt "the colonists" would have fought a very long, and protracted guerrilla war against the British.

"And noone could understand Sam Houston due to his heavy Scottish/Irish accent "

That certainly would have been confusing.

We would have something to do everyday at 4pm.

"Though fictional, "The Patriot" has a strong element of truth, in that it gives a sense of just how much courage it took for the colonists to rebel against the awesome might of the British Empire"

You lost me with that comment. "Strong element of truth?" Not so much.

April Morning did a better job of capturing that than Lethal Musket ever will.

I think King George had other things on his mind.

Like which wall was better to lick?

Glup!….

Amicalement
Armand

Accents. RP English is a recent innovation and nobody I know speaks it ( Apart from a few telephone voices I hear).
Most speak with what we'd describe as a local accent ( An accent local to the county you live in).
The accents of towns seperated by 10 miles would've been different enough to allow local people to place the speaker's home town by the way they spoke.
Some of our regional accents are certainly older than the settlement of America and whilst they're not as 'broad' as they once were, they're still there ( Try a bit of West Country, Midlands, Lancashire and Yorkshire and you'll understand).
New accents such as Scouse have developed and they will continue to develop.
You get used to it. I can struggle with a family members strong Ulster accent but not the other Irish and Scottish accents of friends.
The American Revolution fails? An eastern seaboard linked to what is now Canada and now an independent member of the Commonwealth?
The western seaboard settled by way of Oregon as English explorers had been there by sea. Indian nations in the interior? .
Conflicts with Spain and France almost inevitable followed by treaties ( Acte de Quebec/ the Quebec Act 1744).
Oh, and the L in calm is still silent.
And leave Farmer George alone. Read his writing on Blackstones and the Blackstone and the causes of the American Revolution written by Richard Samuelson. Noggin jogger.

The American colonies were already outgrowing Britain in population before 1776. The empire would have eventually been reshaped, and the American part of it would have dominated in evry way except politically. Remember that after 1788 there was massive English investment in America; its economy was far outstripping Britains.

See my post about Magnum to find out……

The population of the American colonies in 1776 was between 2.5 and 3 million. That of Great Britain was about three times as large.

In 1812 the US population was approaching 8 million. The population of Great Britain, which then included Ireland was approximately 18 million.

Those are snapshots.The trend favored America.

Really? The long-range trend perhaps after the US became independent and began to grow, but that trend is not indicated in 1776 unless you have some data to support your idea.

Benjamin Franklin, "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, &c." (1751)
urope is generally full settled with Husbandmen, Manufacturers, &c. and therefore cannot now much increase in People: America is chiefly occupied by Indians, who subsist mostly by Hunting. But as the Hunter, of all Men, requires the greatest Quantity of Land from whence to draw his Subsistence, (the Husbandman subsisting on much less, the Gardner on still less, and the Manufacturer requiring least of all), The Europeans found America as fully settled as it well could be by Hunters; yet these having large Tracks, were easily prevail'd on to part with Portions of Territory to the new Comers, who did not much interfere with the Natives in Hunting, and furnish'd them with many Things they wanted.

Land being thus plenty in America, and so cheap as that a labouring Man, that understands Husbandry, can in a short Time save Money enough to purchase a Piece of new Land sufficient for a Plantation, whereon he may subsist a Family; such are not afraid to marry; for if they even look far enough forward to consider how their Children when grown up are to be provided for, they see that more Land is to be had at Rates equally easy, all Circumstances considered.

Hence Marriages in America are more general, and more generally early, than in Europe. And if it is reckoned there, that there is but one Marriage per Annum among 100 Persons, perhaps we may here reckon two; and if in Europe they have but 4 Births to a Marriage (many of their Marriages being late) we may here reckon 8, of which if one half grow up, and our Marriages are made, reckoning one with another at 20 Years of Age, our People must at least be doubled every 20 Years.