Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the US, to become independent, we had a revolution and war, meaning death and property damage, followed by population displacements, and we then cut all links to the UK.
Canada and Australia didn't become fully independent until the 1980s, and they still have Queen Elizabeth as their head of state (by choice). But they ended up independent without war, death or property damage.
And since they stayed connected to the UK, they joined World War I and II at the beginning and were major contributors to the UK's war effort.
What if the US had found a way to move towards independence without war, just as Canada and Australia did, and if the US had maintained links to the UK?
If the US had entered World War I and World War II at the beginning of each, history would have likely turned out far differently. The British Empire ruled 1/4 of the planet in 1914 and even more in 1939, and if the US had been added onto that power, the Allies would have been victorious much more quickly, and perhaps World War II wouldn't have happened and Communism wouldn't have taken over so much of the globe.
Anyone else think that a peaceful and gradual shift to independence (if possible), and maintaining links with the UK, would have been better, than revolution and war?
The KEY is that the US Independence was a few centuries ago.... not one and a TOTALLY DIFFERENT set of circumstances and MONARCHY in the UK then the one the US Government COULD NOT REACH and TRIED a PEACEFUL BREAKAWAY.
In Fact..... the US did NOT want a breakaway. They wanted the TAXES removed that were highly unfair. The King at the time Took some away.. and would not budge on others. So it GREW TO WHAT IT BECAME.
Lot of this can be looked up and all the circumstances during totally different eras of COLONIALISM OF ENGLAND IN THE WORLD. Canada and Australia stayed loyal to the crown long enough to reach the END OF THE COLONIAL ERA and therefore Peaceful road and Independence.
It might be argued that the peaceful and bloodless advancement of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many other nations within the British Commonwealth was made possible only by the emerging American Nation's determination to assume a stronger stance.
But we can learn from the past and have a different future.
I think that having a total separation from the UK had some adverse consequences: mostly that the British Empire, which took the brunt of Nazi assaults single-handedly in 1940/41 and didn't give in, thus ensuring that the light of freedom wasn't extinguished in Europe, would have been a lot stronger if the US had remained connected with it, and the armies of freedom in 1940/41 would have been a lot more powerful. In 1914, the armies of freedom would have been a lot more powerful, too.
These days, we're seeing the rise of some really odious regimes, bent on imposing dictatorship on lots of the globe.
The countries that we have the most in common with are, in some respects, the UK and its offshoot countries. It's not too late to move closer to them now and strengthen a democratic bloc of countries (which do a lot of business with each other, too). We should do so.
How would the early entry of the thirteen colonies, if they had so remained, into the two world wars have been decisive? All that it would have added would have been a stretch of the Atlantic Coast with European settlement not extending beyond the Line of Proclamation running down through the Appalachians, a small population due to the lack of immigrants drawn by cheap land, and undeveloped industry because of British restrictions and trade barriers. Beyond the Appalachians to the Mississippi the native peoples would still rule, no doubt being constantly agitated by the French, Spanish, Russian and who knows what other European colonial powers who would have filled the void from New Orleans to Alaska.
Or are you presuming that Manifest Destiny, the Trail of Tears, the seizure of Mexican territory and all those other evil things the Americans did to create the world's most powerful country would have also occurred under the Union Jack?
In the US, to become independent, we had a revolution and war, meaning death and property damage, followed by population displacements, and we then cut all links to the UK.
Canada and Australia didn't become fully independent until the 1980s, and they still have Queen Elizabeth as their head of state (by choice). But they ended up independent without war, death or property damage.
And since they stayed connected to the UK, they joined World War I and II at the beginning and were major contributors to the UK's war effort.
What if the US had found a way to move towards independence without war, just as Canada and Australia did, and if the US had maintained links to the UK?
If the US had entered World War I and World War II at the beginning of each, history would have likely turned out far differently. The British Empire ruled 1/4 of the planet in 1914 and even more in 1939, and if the US had been added onto that power, the Allies would have been victorious much more quickly, and perhaps World War II wouldn't have happened and Communism wouldn't have taken over so much of the globe.
Anyone else think that a peaceful and gradual shift to independence (if possible), and maintaining links with the UK, would have been better, than revolution and war?
I've taught this period of American history and have wondered why we fought a revolution. If this British would have agree to representation by the colonies in Parliament, I doubt their would've been a revolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoHyping
The KEY is that the US Independence was a few centuries ago.... not one and a TOTALLY DIFFERENT set of circumstances and MONARCHY in the UK then the one the US Government COULD NOT REACH and TRIED a PEACEFUL BREAKAWAY.
In Fact..... the US did NOT want a breakaway. They wanted the TAXES removed that were highly unfair. The King at the time Took some away.. and would not budge on others. So it GREW TO WHAT IT BECAME.
Lot of this can be looked up and all the circumstances during totally different eras of COLONIALISM OF ENGLAND IN THE WORLD. Canada and Australia stayed loyal to the crown long enough to reach the END OF THE COLONIAL ERA and therefore Peaceful road and Independence.
Regarding the sentence I bolded, the colonies did not have a problem with taxes, they had a problem with taxation without representation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
It might be argued that the peaceful and bloodless advancement of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many other nations within the British Commonwealth was made possible only by the emerging American Nation's determination to assume a stronger stance.
Excellent point!
Quote:
Originally Posted by deb100
How would the early entry of the thirteen colonies, if they had so remained, into the two world wars have been decisive? All that it would have added would have been a stretch of the Atlantic Coast with European settlement not extending beyond the Line of Proclamation running down through the Appalachians, a small population due to the lack of immigrants drawn by cheap land, and undeveloped industry because of British restrictions and trade barriers. Beyond the Appalachians to the Mississippi the native peoples would still rule, no doubt being constantly agitated by the French, Spanish, Russian and who knows what other European colonial powers who would have filled the void from New Orleans to Alaska.
Or are you presuming that Manifest Destiny, the Trail of Tears, the seizure of Mexican territory and all those other evil things the Americans did to create the world's most powerful country would have also occurred under the Union Jack?
Yeah, I guess the Canadians never made it to the Pacific.
Yeah, and all the people all over the world whose territories were taken over by the British were thrilled to be peacefully colonized.
Well, in North America I would say the only ones who were not happy were the French in Quebec. Most people in the American colonies were satisfied until the early 1770s.
Well, in North America I would say the only ones who were not happy were the French in Quebec. Most people in the American colonies were satisfied until the early 1770s.
I actually wasn't thinking of North America.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
