"3 reasons the American Revolution was a mistake" Topic

"This July 4, let's not mince words: American independence in 1776 was a monumental mistake. We should be mourning the fact that we left the United Kingdom, not cheering it.

Of course, evaluating the wisdom of the American Revolution means dealing with counterfactuals. As any historian would tell you, this is a messy business. We obviously can't be entirely sure how America would have fared if it had stayed in the British Empire longer, perhaps gaining independence a century or so later, along with Canada.

But I'm reasonably confident a world in which the revolution never happened would be better than the one we live in now, for three main reasons: Slavery would've been abolished earlier, American Indians would've faced rampant persecution but not the outright ethnic cleansing Andrew Jackson and other American leaders perpetrated, and America would have a parliamentary system of government that makes policymaking easier and lessens the risk of democratic collapse…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Consider the source: GIGO

Dr. Cruz,

A large number of people might take offense at this 'progressive' propaganda.

What if someone posted an article pushing that it would have been much better for South America if Argentina had lost the Argentine War of Independence against Spain. Would you like that?

This type of post does not belong on the American Revolution board.

Mark

Getting past a point, Armand. This isn't even decent propaganda.

Fascinating what if, alternative timeline. Would the industrial powerhouse that helped turn the tide of two worlds wars been such a mighty force if the rebellion never happened or failed?

Calmer now. Armand, there are obviously people out there with a theory of history in which the United States is the root of all evil--who despise our principles, and openly wish the United States had never existed. By the very principles they hate, we do not silence them, any more than we to Nazis and flat-earthers. But to keep propagating their propaganda at some point crosses the line into outright insult.

But just to address this person's three benefits of crushing America underfoot in 1775--
Slavery. Well, I think we can safely say that slaves in the north and east of the United States would not have been freed 40 years before Canada as they were in some states. As for Britain's emancipation of 1830, would you care to bet anything substantial that it would have gone through Parliament with millions more slaves in captivity within the empire and tens of thousands more slaveholders lobbying?
The Indians. More humanely treated? Maybe. Or would Britain, faced with the much more powerful tribes of what is now the United States, have adopted the same solutions? COULD Britain have adopted different ones, considering how little influence the government in Washington sometimes had on the frontier?
Oh, and a parliament! This year, all the leftists are thrilled by parliaments. I can't remember equal enthusiasm on their part when Bill Clinton held the White House and the Republicans the House of Representatives. Then, it was "stroke of the pen, law of the land: works for me!"

And in passing, I'd love to permanently squelch the idea that if the United States had never been, Britain would have been handing out "get out of the Empire free" cards in 1867, anyway. Might check with the Irish on that. Or with India. Why should they have? If you could suppress the Americans with a few volleys in 1775, why not do it in 1875? And they might even be less troublesome. After all, with the Stamp Act, they've put an end to those pesky American newspapers. The colonies are all to have royal governors--that had been on-going--and after the French and Indian War, none of the new ones were granted elected assemblies. Taxes are decreed from London, and those royal governors are empowered to pick juries. But all this would have gone away--why, precisely?

Never mind. To people like this one, nothing good can have come of the United States, so any good thing which happened after 1776 must have happened for some other reason.

Total crap.Take your anti-American propaganda and shove it.

LMAO! Dylan Matthews should stick with writing about furries.

We won, get over it…

Maybe we would have been better off if all the British colonies in the New World had joined with the 13 colonies and all of them from Belize, and Bermuda to Canada all left at the same time? Perhaps the UK would have been more circumspect on how they treated their other colonies if the whole New World revolted and gained independence at once?

Perhaps if Canada had joined the US slavery would have ended sooner as more free states would have had the upper hand in the Congress?

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Despite being one of the ‘losers', I'm a bit mystified why such a ‘what if' article should be considered so inflammatory and offensive – isn't it the sort of counter-factual discussion we gamers have on a regular basis, from "Would England be better off if Harold had won at Hastings?" onwards. and I'm sure Tango would happily engage in an intelligent discussion of an alternative Argentinian history of the sort you describe.

I'm not familiar with the source, so can't comment on that but, in my limited knowledge of the AWI, it was more of a civil war between British loyalists and those wanting Independence – hardly a war to "crush America underfoot in 1775" as Robert described it?

British abolition of slavery may well have changed/been delayed by the influence of American ‘stakeholders' in the following 25-30 years, likewise the handling of the Native Americans but I think we can all agree after the last 3 years that parliamentary democracy following the British model isn't necessarily as great as we thought it was!

Main point though, you won, and there's no risk of you being forced back against your will (though we're going to start sending you some of our spare Royals, it seems), so there's really no need to be so outraged or defensive about articles like this is there?

(My family were on the losing side in 1685 but we've got over that as well (OK, uncle Dave is still bitter about it, but no-one pays any attention to him)

Although I find such speculations to be of marginal or little interest, I also was amazed by the vehement reactions of several posters.

That the article cited in the OP has a political agenda is obvious but surely if it matters (arguable) a calm refutation such as Basha' s (above) would be more in line with the tenet of free speech?

Tango often posts articles meant to be burrs under the saddle. Generally, those few who oppose him posting such are howled down. This specific OP seems nothing out of the usual and in line with TMPpolicy.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people things they do not want to hear."

George Orwell.

Well, ouch

Although I find such speculations to be of marginal or little interest, I also was amazed by the vehement reactions of several posters.

Unh, dont get too worried; I understand this mindset. You wouldnt unless you grew up with people like this like I have. They're not bad people at all, they just get threatened easily. Having said that, they're not saying they dont like counterfactual discussions, only that they dont like purely revisionist, attacks on the concept of America which take the place of history.

To have a counterfactual discussion, one first has to understand the facts and history which we can safely assume most of the readers there do not. If that is the case, there can be very little creative, intellectual counterfactualizing and it becomes instead a litany of America bad, Founders bad, white men bad which frankly gets tiring and serves little purpose except to boost kale smoothy sales.

Thus, I think their reactions are understandable because that article is nothing more than a "Look at our Fascist regime" masquerading as a sincere "What if".

"…What if someone posted an article pushing that it would have been much better for South America if Argentina had lost the Argentine War of Independence against Spain. Would you like that?…"

I would LOVED! … as I love alternative history or what if history … I wrote an article a long time ago that clearly specified that Argentina would have been another country … a much better one … if the British invasions would have culminated in a success … in these moments we would be in the line of countries like Canada, Australia or New Zealand … and not in the line of Venezuela or Cuba …

Imho it would have been a wonderful country at the US level … so "winning" the Independence of Spain was not only not significant in my opinion … it was a disgrace … much better it would have been to lose to England …

Incidentally … there would never have been a Malvinas / Falkland War … (smile).

Amicalement
Armand

Armand, I wish you would participate more in the discussion threads (and not just those started by your OPs) – clearly have the right attitude and have already got me thinking of the possibilities of the scenario for 19th century South America you outlined.

And no Falklands War would be fine by me as well!

that article is nothing more than a "Look at our Fascist regime" masquerading as a sincere "What if"

Of course it is. The point is I've read several of the above outraged using a term I don't particularly like & would never use : 'snow flakes'. If the term has a justifiable point, it is that you should let most things of no consequence wash over you.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, MiniPigs.

I guess if the USA is such a dreadful mistake no one wants to come here and everyone is trying to leave. Oh wait, I must be thinking of the Bizarro universe!

I see it for what it is, political drivel. Although, this article gives drivel a bad name. :-)

Among reasonably intelligent people who are informed about history, the type of people who make up a majority of those posting on this forum, a discussion about how the U.S., Britain and the world might have been different if Britain had won the AWI, or if it hadn't happened, might be interesting and enlightening. The article Armand cites does not fall into this category.

The author makes the same basic mistake that most partisan hacks make when it comes to counterfactuals. He starts with a rosy alternative present and assumes it would have developed but for some event in the past. The proper way to do a counterfactual is to start at the point where it deviates from the original timeline and then worry the thread forward to see what develops.

Thanks my friend… first … remember English is my "fourth" language … it's not even the second one … you also have to choose between actively participating in writing (what you'll see causes me some difficulty) … or post and enjoy what others write … that they are many and very good at it … (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

You make more sense than many for whom it is their first. 🙂

Um no mistake

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

It's a moot point since America did win the Revolution.

And a parliamentary system does not protect rights, nor regional/local freedoms, as well as our constitutional republic has and does.