|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums
Hot Topics & Current Events
No Bull, Just Debate
Was the American Revolution a Good Thing?|
Go
![]() |
New
![]() |
Find
![]() |
Notify
![]() |
Tools
![]() |
Reply
![]() |
|
|
Member |
I propose a discussion using revisionist history and speculating what the effect would have been on the world if the American Revolution had never taken place.
No American Revolution, and no mass democratization/ universal white male suffrage so early, means no Andrew Jackson, and that's a good thing. It might mean no final expulsion of Indians from east of the Mississippi. But it does not change the tendency for a technologically advanced, population-exploding frontier settler society to commit lots of atrocities in its thirst for land, and to rationalize said atrocities with an ideology that then encourages further atrocities. In the long term the Proclamation would have exerted approximately as much effective force to check the bloody westward expansion as did the Supreme Court rulings in the Marshall Cherokee cases, i.e. none. How would this affect WWI, WWII, slavery, Civil War, Mexico’s cessation? In retrospect wouldn't America and the world both be better off if the USA had remained more closely associated with the British Empire and her Commonwealth? After all, if the erstwhile "greatest generation" had gotten in on the Hitler-fighting action at the same time as Canada and Australia did, a whole lot of trouble could have been avoided. Would the French Revolution have occurred without the recent, previous example of the American one? Quite likely not, or at least not in the way it played out. How different might the history of the 19th century in Europe have been if Napoleon had never had his opportunity at Toulon? And if no Napoleon would there have been a Bismarck? Put your red, white and blue hat away and open your mind to the various possibilities. Counterfactual history discussion is fun. |
||
|
|
Member |
The American Constitution's extremely strong protections of property rights vs. The State made the abolition of slavery much more difficult. In Brazil and Russia slavery and serfdom were abolished by fiat, which couldn't happen here.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
The Indian Wars and the depopulation of natives through hunger and disease (which the British Crown managed to avoid in Canada). The US revolution was motived by a US desire to overturn the Indian treaties that limited westward expansion.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
If the U.S. had remain part of England what would have been the likelihood of the French and Russian land sales? Slim, I'd say.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
The American Revolution is not a revolution at all. A revolution, in any clear sense, must include the natives, as in the native population rebelling against the state (like the French revolution).
This never happened. The colonial settlers rebelled against those that sent them and actually escalated atrocities against the natives. The American 'Revolution' is an invasion, the Europeans where settlers in a foreign nation, they decided to take over that nation and call it theirs. The best analogy would be the Mob sending it's goons to rob a bank, the goons do rob the bank, but cut-out the mob-boss and make off with the cash, then later pretend they where the bank and it was their money all along, because they prevented the mob-boss from getting it. |
|||
|
|
suspended pending review,Nemesis |
If Chickens were as intelligent as people, the whole world would be dramatically different. Dave |
|||
|
|
Member |
I only put that on here to stimulate a few folks to respond. I had a real stimulating experience discussing the thought "was the American revolution a Good Thing" and I thought it would be fun to put on here and debate. There are some good thinkers on these forums from all walks of life that could provide imput to what they think would have happen if the Revolution didn't take place. The given is the revolution did happen and no one or nothing can change that, so it would be just an intellectual exercise to ponder what would have happen if it didn't occur. I was hoping for an intellectual response. Intellect defined: The ability to learn and reason as distinguished from the ability to feel or will: capacity for knowledge and understanding: the ability to think abstractly or profoundly. Try it, you will like it. This message has been edited. Last edited by: Another4Truth, |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
As long as you're assigning the labels of 'good' and 'bad' to historical movements/conflicts (such as settlement of the new world), why not take the logical step of defining the Norman, Saxon, Angle, Dane, Norse, Roman and Celtic invasions of the British Isles as such? How about the Franks invasion of France? The Roman invasion of Gaul? The Greeks and Troy? The Egyptians and the Upper Nile? The Hitties, Phoenecians and Philistines and Judea? For that matter, why not decry every clash of civilizations back to Ur on the Euphrates?
Taken in that light, we didn't invade Iraq.... we came back home. As for the American Revolution, it was inevitable, based purely on the rights of the citizens under English Common Law. The lack of representation in Parliment was a glaring error of the government, and the very basis of the 'other' breaks with the British Empire over the years. "Home Rule" wasn't just a catchphrase of the Americans. The Irish, Indians, South Africans, Australians, New Zeelanders, etc. all took up the cry eventually. Sullivan013 |
|||
|
|
Member |
I was trying to start the revisionist history at a more recent event that involved our own more recent history and felt that the American Revolution was a good place to start.
As you pointed out if the time period covered is to long then the results can be meaningless. All comments are welcomed as this is a debate. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Ok.. i'll bite....
if the revolution hadd not occurred in 1776, what do I think would have become of the United states? i think we'd have lasted as a colony for another 40 years. Misrepresentation of the colonies led to the revolution, and in England, things became worse. the colonies barely survived William IV's reign. the infighting between the monarchical constitutionalists and the Whigs and the Tories would have split the colonies asunder. (it was during this period that Canada began THEIR bid for independence and by 1865 they were a free and "sovereign" country under the control of a governor General, but free to pick their own path. i believe the westward movement would have continued, though not in the way Madison would have worded it. without the war the Natives would PROBABLY have been sent packing anyway, since the British did almost the same to many of the tribes in Canada. the Tsu-tina were moved from their native grounds to what is now Calgary. the Blackfoot were dispossessed in BC, and the Crow were expelled in 1898. the war with Mexico would have been unavoidable. Spain and England were perpetually at war, and as our settlers moved further south we would have been encroaching on their lands in Florida, Texas, Arizona and California. With the crown of England i n charge of the colonies here, Spain would have not really allowed Mexican Independence on 1810. the two crowns would have met in pretty much the same fashion they did in 1847. the outcome would have probably been the same, judging from the officers of the time... Santa Anna would have still been a General, and Winfield Scott would probably been SIR Winfield Scott. i would dare say that the civil war would not have happened as Slavery was already illegal, and the west Indies Company would have controlled our industry, import and export. the Spanish American war would have been fought in 1847, not 1895, and skirmishes across the border would have been a staple of the day. the Indian wars would still happened, and France’s Invasion of Mexico may never have happened. World war I, AND II would have found us right in the middle of it, since they never had anything to do with the USA. it was about our association with Britain and France that made us targets. the face of the world would probably be much the same. Democracy would flourish here, like it does in Europe and the Latin American countries. Independence would have come differently, but would have come, none the less. i could go on forever here, writing a "history" book but i have a math class to go to,. I'll check in later and base my answers on yours. is that a good start? |
|||
|
|
suspended pending review,Nemesis |
Intellectual? Not really. Not at least in my opinion. "IF" the American Revolution had not taken place then someone else would be posing the question, "What if the Americans had revolted?" What if the Greeks had won their war with Persia What if Rome had beaten Carthage. You bet, the entire world would be very different if chickens were just as smart as humans - Care to debate this? You don't get it? "IF" is a meaningless word in terms of what happened. Dave |
|||
|
|
"I love the smell of Brown Water in the morning" |
All of this is interesting but the bottom line is, much of the world would not enjoy the freedom they now have if the US never became a nation. Like all new enterprises, we made mistakes but we also learned from them. The Constitution is the greatest man made document for freedom ever written. The "American experiment" has been copied by countless countries and nations.
As for the "Native" Americans, there is no such thing since everyone born in this country is a "Native" American. EVERYONE came from somewhere else, including the Indians. The settlers from Europe did NOT introduce war, broken treaties, slavery, nor atrocities against the enemy. All that was going on in spades by the various Indian tribes. We tend to concentrate too much on what is wrong with America, overlooking the vast amount of what is good about this country. IF there had never been an American revolution the world would be vastly poorer for it. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Actually, Raunchy, recent discoveries in Argentina, and Mississipi, put that theory to question. the Purron Dam in Miahuatlan, Puebla, Mexico carbon dates back BEFORE the clovis Period, and remains found in indian Mounds Mississipi have cabon dated (14 & 15) to 15 thousand years. Patagonian remains have steadily carbon dated to 18000 years. (that is aproximatelly 8 thousand years BEFORE THE great Ice age. on top of all, remains of Mastodon and bear remains in Alabama and Mississipi have shown signs of being killed or at least injured by Human tools. new theory suggests co habitation of the Americas between the original inhabitents and Modern man who DID come across the bering straight |
|||
|
|
suspended pending review,Nemesis |
No, sorry, recent discoveries don't put the theories into question. They simply push back the dates a few thousand years. There have been quite a few times that we've had ice ages and the Bering Sea was crossable. DNA doesn't lie, and there's only "one" species of human on the planet. Dave |
|||
|
|
Member |
Here is a time-line from beginning to 1700
|
|||
|
|
Member |
|
|||
|
|
Member |
|
|||
|
|
Member |
|
|||
|
|
Member |
|
|||
|
|
Member |
|
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 |
| Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums
Hot Topics & Current Events
No Bull, Just Debate
Was the American Revolution a Good Thing?

