Just think.. If George Washington had failed, we might be Canadian

[SoCalDem]

or would we be French?

How many countries would we be now?

Mexico would surely be bigger

Alaska, Washington & Oregon might have been Russian or maybe even Japanese.

Ever wonder what we might have become, had we not prevailed in the revolutionary war?

[RufusTFirefly]

1. Regardless, we'd almost certainly have better health care, at least. n/t

[aroach]

45. too true

I didn't celebrate Independence Day this year. I'd rather still be British so my family could have some health care.

Been fighting for months to get my son health care he needs and failing at every turn. I'd happily sell a kidney so that he could have his care but I probably can't even sell a kidney without insurance.

[Taverner]

2. If you live on the East Coast, you'd probably be Canadian

Texans, Californians and Floridians, you'd be speaking Spanish. Probably would have fought in the Bolivarian war of independence (or maybe not.)

Anyone in the middle would be speaking French.

[T Wolf]

4. Or would we all be speaking German? It's pretty random, playing what-if on this grand scale.

Noting that I believe that the US is too god-damned big to successfully (from my perspective) exist as a single, political unit, the UNITED States did change history via the two World Wars.

Now, whether that is a net gain or not is open to (worthless) debate. We are stuck exactly where we currently are. Getting out of this mess is the challenge.

[Wednesdays]

8. No way would I be speaking Spanish. I'd be living in Warsaw

...and speaking German. German, not Polish, since all of Poland would be part of the Great German Reich that began in 1939, that stretches from Iceland to China.

I'd probably be in some sort of indentured servitude because of my ancestry, but at least my family would be spared extermination because of Polish lineage, not Jewish.

[SoCalDem]

11. I watched an OLD PBS series a while back and it made me think of this

Apparently when Washington was in his early 20's he was sent on a mission with a few others, and it involved an ambush on some Frenchmen (I think it was Frenchmen)..anyway, they posited that he kind of blundered his way into this and was lucky to have not been killed.

Maybe someone would have taken his place and spearheaded the revolution.,.or maybe not..

the little oddities of history are interesting..

[SoCalDem]

29. Found the incident: George Washington in the French and Indian War

It's wiki..but the details are probably close

Main article: George Washington in the French and Indian War

In the early 1750s Washington was sent as an ambassador to the French traders and Indians as far north as present day Erie, Pennsylvania. Virginia was very interested in this area as the gateway to western expansion via the Ohio River and onward. Pennsylvania and Virginia both competed for this area around what would become Pittsburgh, but the French saw it as even more valuable; a way to unite Quebec and Louisiana via river while pinning the English to the West Coast,

At twenty-two years of age, Washington fired some of the first shots of what would become a world war. The trouble began in 1753, when France began building a series of forts in the Ohio Country, a region also claimed by Virginia. Governor Dinwiddie sent young Major Washington to the Ohio Country to assess French military strength and intentions, and to deliver a letter to the French commander, which asked them to leave. The French declined to leave, but Washington became well-known after his account of the journey was published in both Virginia and England, since most English-speaking people knew little about lands on the other side of the Appalachian Mountains at the time.

In 1754, Dinwiddie sent Washington, now commissioned a lieutenant colonel in the newly created Virginia Regiment, on another mission to the Ohio Country, this time to drive the French away. Along with his American Indian allies, Washington and his troops ambushed a French Canadian scouting party, of some 30 men, led by Joseph Coulon de Villiers de Jumonville and sent from Fort Duquesne to discover if Washington had in fact invaded French-claimed territory. Were this to be the case he was to send word back to the fort, then deliver a formal summons to Washington calling on him to withdraw.

His small force was an embassy, resembling Washington’s to Jacques Legardeur de Saint-Pierre the preceding year, and he neglected to post sentries around his encampment. At daybreak on May 28, Washington with 40 men stole up on the French camp near present Jumonville, Pa. Some were still asleep, others preparing breakfast. Without warning, Washington gave the order to fire. The Canadians who escaped the volley scrambled for their weapons, but were swiftly overwhelmed. Ten of the Canadians were killed, one wounded, all but one of the rest taken prisoner.

Washington and his men then retired, leaving the bodies of their victims behind. The French commander, Ensign Jumonville, and most of the other wounded French were subsequently massacred, the French later claimed, by Tanacharison and the other Indians.<2>

Washington then built Fort Necessity, which soon proved insufficient, as he was soon compelled to surrender to a larger French and American Indian force. The surrender terms that Washington signed included an admission that he had "assassinated" Jumonville. (The document was written in French, which Washington could not read.) Because the French claimed that Jumonville's party had been on a diplomatic (rather than military) mission, the "Jumonville affair" became an international incident and helped to ignite the French and Indian War, a part of the worldwide Seven Years' War.

Washington was released by the French with his promise not to return to the Ohio Country for one year. Back in Virginia, Governor Dinwiddie broke up the Virginia Regiment into independent companies; Washington resigned from active military service rather than accept a demotion to captain.

[Sebastian Doyle]

17. You're history revision leaves out one very important fact.

Hitler wouldn't have existed without funding from the Bush Crime Family. Who in turn, probably would have never have existed without the robber baron era of US predatory capitalism.

[Wednesdays]

24. True, that

Although the Bush Crime Family may have flourished in Britain, too.

[Taverner]

34. Not necesarrily

Without the US, the Kaiser would have won, and Hitler would be some batshit crazy artist throwing poo at Jews in Berlin.

No you'd probably be part of Kaiser's Germany...

[ieoeja]

39. But were the eastern half and the northwestern quarter or so of the US part of Canada....

Most of what was the US during WW-I would have joined WW-I at the very beginning of the war. So Britain likely would have won that war early.

Mind you, that still would have meant no NAZIs. A major cause of WW-II was that nobody really won WW-I. The German Army was not yet defeated when the German Navy rebelled. This left many Germans feeling that they could have still won that war. Hence, the demand for a rematch.

Of course, with the Brits being that powerful, would the French and Russians have sided with Britain against Germany? Would Germany have seen Britain as so much of a threat that they would have sought the French as allies instead of viewing France as Southern Germany?

As an historical what-if, the US having never existed is too much to ponder.

[Taverner]

40. You are correct - also something to keep in mind would be American influence of the UK

Since the colonies would be part of England, the cultures would have meshed a little more and life could have been very different - think of all that alpha mentality applied to a Empire like the UK. Almost scary to ponder...

[ieoeja]

55. Before our troubles began, some folk predicted the UK capitol might move to North America.n/t

[Taverner]

57. Interesting - Imagine NYC as king of NEW BRITTANIA!

[CTyankee]

15. I'm a native Texan (3rd generation) but my forebears were from Georgia

(the Scots who came here b/c of the Clearances in Scotland), Wales and England (came over and I think went to the South and thence to Texas).

Iprobably wouldn't have made it to Texas in the first place. Matter of fact, I probably wouldn't exist since folks from all those disparate places wouldn't have gotten together had it not been for the reality of the United States.

[Taverner]

49. Aye, true that laddy...

[Mudoria]

3. Thank you George!

[OwnedByFerrets]

5. I would rather dream of what we could have become had

Raygun not cheated and lied his way into the presidency.

[joeybee12]

6. Actually, if Washington had failed, most Candians would be American!

Not most, but a lot. The vast majority of English-speaking Canadians can trace their roots to those in the colonies who were loyal to king George and moved north after the revolutionary war. Smart move, if you ask me.

[zipplewrath]

7. Actually, probably American

It is more likely we'd still be "Americans" it's just we'd probably look a bit more like Canada than we do. It's a hard question to answer because it isn't clear how the original 13 expand if we stayed British. The French almost assuredly don't sell Louisiana to the English Crown. Mexico probably stays rather large as a result, possibly even claiming large sections of the western areas for themselves. The US becomes some confederation of states east of the Mississippi with no unifying constitution. Also, probably no civil war, as slavery is ultimately ended by The Crown.

[SoCalDem]

9. That's why I think too.. The original 13 might have ended up as one big one

at least the northeastern ones

Mexico probably would have extended to Kansas & at least halfway up California.

ther Great Lakes states would have probably been Canadian or maybe even French.

I agree about the Civil war too, England got wise long before we did.

The Spanish & the French would have duked it out over Florida & Louisiana.

[Tesha]

10. What a thought, ehh? (NT)

[SoCalDem]

12. this made me think of it..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6131580&mesg_id=6131991

[krispos42]

13. We'd be speaking Russian

There would have been a Marxist/Leninist revolution among the slaves of the Deep South, turning it into a Russian-dominated communist state.

Just think... if the Confederates hadn't been defeated in the Civil War, they would have been living in a Worker's Paradise for about a century. "Redneck" would have an entirely different meaning. :-)

[SoCalDem]

14. I think the Russians would have stayed west of the Rockies.

:)

[krispos42]

16. Nah, it would be a revolution where the slaves were

That would be the Deep South.

Likely the Mexicans would have moved up into the Southwest following the collapse and chaos.


Harry Turtledove wrote a series of books about his possiblity... where the South wins the Civil War and then a 2nd war a generation later. And when WW1 breaks out, the North and the South are on opposite sides.

The first books ends with a Marxist revolution among the slaves.

[SoCalDem]

18. I think slavery would have ended before there was a war about it

because there would not have been a united states for them to have broken from..

[krispos42]

26. This would have occured only a couple of generations after the Civil War

And after haveing lost 200,000 soldiers to defend their "right" to the institution, it would not simply have faded away. Hell it took a century after the Civil War for blacks to be able to vote, marry the person (of the opposite gender) of their choice, sit at the same lunch counter as white people, and get into universities and professional careers.

In Turtledove's book, the victorious Confederacy became allied with and dependent on Great Britian for manufactured goods, and the British apparantly made abolish slavery as an institution and replaced it with serfdom and peasantry... a marginal improvement, perhaps.

Still ripe ground for a Marxist revolution.

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. OTOH, the 'United States of America' might have been the

result of the slave states breaking with the crown in the 1820s, when Britain decided to end slavery.

[Sebastian Doyle]

19. That's not what they did in Red Dawn!

They began their invasion east of the Rockies (I think the movie was supposed to be set in Colorado)

[SoCalDem]

20. never saw red dawn:)

But I did see "the Russians are Coming, the Russians are Coming" & "Rally 'Round the Flag, Boys" :rofl:

[proteus_lives]

22. Never seen Red Dawn?

For shame! It's pure 80s-awesome!

[krispos42]

30. Once the South had become Communist...

...the Russians would simply have become "advisors" to them, offering military aid to them against the capitalist pigs of the North. New Orleans, Norfold, etc., would have become choked with Soviet shipping.

At the time the South was worth far more than the sparsely-settled West Coast. Having the CSA in their pockets would have given them much more without having to fire a shot.

[Wednesdays]

38. But still very much in Alaska

In that case, Sarah Palin would really see Russia from her house!

:rofl:

[proteus_lives]

21. Have you ever read Turtledove?

His "What-If" universe changes at the civil war where the South was victorious and formed the CSA. One the big reason they won is support from the UK and France. Anyway, pressure from them forced the CSA to free the slaves in the 1880s and put them in a SA-like apartheid situation. The CSA was allies with France/UK/Russia and the US went to the side of Germany and Austria-Hungry. So when WWI started, there was massive trench-warfare in NA.

Sorry for the long intro but during WWI, the CSA's colored population rose up in red revolution...because communist theory spoke to that vast underclass.

His series is excellent, I suggest it.

[krispos42]

28. A lot... :-)

That's exactly the story I was referring to.

I never got around to reading the other books in the series, though.



I practically read the covers off of his booked based in Videssos, though. :-)

[proteus_lives]

31. Videssos is on my to-read list. ;-)

I have his CSA/US conflict series from start to finish and I've read them a half a dozen times. I suggest reading the rest of them, they are scorchers!

[krispos42]

35. Speaking of Civil War alternative history...

...you might like "The Lost Regiment" series by William R. Forstchen.

[Posteritatis]

36. One neat thing about Turtledove...

...is that he'll more or less directly crib 'our' history into a lot of the alternate ones, and makes it work. One of his books in particular, In The Presence of Mine Enemies, is set in 2009-10 (or thereabouts) in a Germany that won the second (and third) world wars. Most of the main characters are Jews who've managed to survive to that point. At first, you think that the book is chiefly about their trying to continue to do just that, until about a third of the way through where you realize what the book really is is a retelling of the story of the fall of the Soviet Union.

I knew the background and process of that, having taken a pretty good Soviet history seminar in university along with my own readings, but that sort of sideways perspective on the events really helped me understand it a bit better emotionally.

It's sort of similar with the Timeline-191 series that you're referring to, especially the later books about Jake Featherston's rise to power. You read The Center Cannot Hold, you understand 1920s and 1930s Germany rather more.

(Of course, his other main series, where aliens invade in 1942, is fun for a stack of other reasons not entirely relevant to the discussion. :) )

[Xithras]

23. No, not Canadian, We'd be Yorkers, or Carolinians, or Vermonters. Or we'd all the the U.S.

American's have largely lost their perspective on this over the past couple centuries, but from the POV of the British, there were 20 colonies in North America in 1776, all equal in the eyes of the King and parliament. Had the rebels lost, it's improbable that would have changed.

The difference would simply be that all 20 colonies (or more) would have been present at the conferences on the confederation of the British colonies instead of the three or four present when Canada was formed. Since the Confederation was opt-in, it's highly improbable that all 13 of the southern Colonies (with their obvious independent streaks) would have joined, and many would probably be independent nations today.

Napoleon would have probably sold Louisiana to the Spanish, cutting off our westward expansion. That land probably would NOT all be Mexico today, since the central Mexican government was far too weak in the early days to hold such a massive territory together. Instead, we'd probably have several countries now occupying the lands west of the Mississippi down to the Yucatan.

[SoCalDem]

25. Just imagine ole Hayley Barbour speaking Spanish

:rofl:

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. Actually, I suspect it would not be much different.

If the revolution in 76-83 had failed, there would have been another one in 1811, when the British Empire was heavily taxing its colonies and impressing American sailors (which there would have been even more of, as they would still be British sailors) into their navy for the fight against Napoleon. Revolutionaries would have made a second attempt, with the Empire distracted by the Napoleonic wars, to break away. They would have allied with Napoleon, who still possessed the Mississippi basin and New Orleans, to drive the British out.

With fewer troops available to commit to the fight, the British might have lost Canada, which would be divided between France and the US.

[SoCalDem]

33. Interesting.

Or perhaps GB would have used US, instead of Australia, as their dumping ground for convicts..:)

[Xithras]

37. Possible, but I doubt it would have played out that way.

Napoleon saw value in France's North American holdings only insasmuch as they were able to return wealth to France. The real reason that Napoleon sold Louisiana to the U.S. was that France had lost control of its Carribbean colonies. Those colonies provided a great amount of money to the French, that Napoleon was planning to use for the development of the Louisiana colony, which in turn was to provide farmland and extensive wealth to France. With no Carribbean colonies, the whole plan collapsed.

While New Orleans was founded by the French, it was controlled by the Spanish until they handed it over only 3 weeks before it was sold to the U.S. The Spanish would have loved to have it back, and that $15 million would have been chump change for the Spanish crown. While you may be right about a second attempt, I'd see an exchange where Spain took Louisiana while France took back its Canadian territories as being far more probable. The British colonies would have gained ownership over all lands east of the Mississippi and the seaboard Canadian territories.

With two major allies on their side, there would also have been less pressure on the indivicual colonies (which were independently governed) to band together into a single nation. Some unification among the northern colonies may have occurred, but I honestly think the southern states would be a collection of independent nations today.

[FarCenter]

41. We'd be far better off if we'd won the War of 1812 and lost the Civil War

[Javaman]

43. ??

:shrug:

[FarCenter]

44. The northern half of the US plus Canada would make a very nice country

[Javaman]

50. We won the war of 1812.

I still :shrug:

[FarCenter]

53. The War of 1812 was a draw

None of the invasions of Canada made much headway.

[Javaman]

54. it would only be a draw if england had gained land, which they did not.

we repulsed England's incursion into our lands. Thus we won.

The boundaries remained the same. If they had at all changed in the favor of England then we would have lost.

We were not, as part of that war, out to expand out territory. We defended ourselves.

[FarCenter]

56. The first land actions were attempted invasions of Canada

First across the St Clair river near Detroit, and then across the Niagra river. Both attempts were turned back by British forces.

Although Americans held part of Ontario in the West, and the British held part of Maine at war's end, the border reverted back by treaty.

Part of the motivation for the war was to capture Canadian territory. The "manifest destiny" doctrine included capturing Canada at that time.

[Javaman]

42. If Washington had failed.

there is a very strong likely hood that there never would have been a French revolution.

Also the various political struggles that happened in England would have never occurred.

There probably would be stronger monarchies still existing today in many of the European nations.

Would have Russia had a revolution?

Would Marx and Lenin had a place to live in the "US" if we hadn't existed and remained a British possession?

Would we indeed be a common wealth?

Would there have been a British revolution? Considering that they were pretty much the dominate empire at the time of our revolution. Would they have collapsed from within?

There are so many if's here, it's virtually impossible to extrapolate to the present, but it's still a fun exercise. Especially for me, I'm a gigantic alternative history geek. :)

[FarCenter]

46. The American Revolution was pretty unimportant to European politics

After all, the 13 colonies were just that - a string of enclaves along the East Coast, not very populous or prosperous.

The main battle between Fance and Great Britan prior to the Napoleonic Wars was the defeat of the French in India. Notable are the Battles of Plassy and Buxor. Great Britain was able to extract great wealth from India, while the loss of its possessions there contributed to the economic malaise leading to the French Revolution.

[Javaman]

51. I was talking about the Madness of King George...

and it's effect on post revolution British politics.

Also, please use spell check. :)

[Betty Karlson]

48. Then you probably won't mind three more additions

If Mister Washington had failed, there would not have been a Monroe Doctrine, and as such Mexico would still be an empire under the house of Habsburg (est. 1863).

In equal measure, the American protectorates would never have been:

- No Cuba 1898 (still Spanish or decolonised)
- No Filipinos 1898 (still Spanish or decolonised)
- No Puerto Rico 1898 (definitely still Spanish)
- No interventions in Central America (from Panama to the Contras)

The United Nations, and its precursor the League of Nations, might never have been. Even if the Second World War had ended with the defeat of Hitler, the aftermath might have been very different:

- No motor behind the decolonisation (which would have had BIG consequences for Indonesia, among others)
- A far wider range of communist nations in Europe - and a warm water port for Russia!

And I could go on.

[Javaman]

52. it's like a gigantic onion.

I love this stuff. :)

Thanks for your insights.

[Orsino]

47. If the Founders had succeeded...

...we would not still be entrenched in the legacy of aristocracy, slavery, genocide and theocracy.

Just another point of view to consider.