A better world without American Revolution

[Doug64]

That is what most British subjects did. The Americans paid less in taxes than those in Britain and other colonies and were represented by virtual representation just like tones of British living in Britain.

True, but misses the point that the colonists had been ruling themselves (mostly) just fine for over a century, and had come to see “virtual representation” as repression. As Edmund Burke pointed out, having Parliament change the rules of the game after a century of letting the colonies handle their own affairs was not the way to keep their loyalty. As one of my favorite authors put it, why should you keep faith with a government that fails to keep faith with you?

 

[Bodi]

True, but misses the point that the colonists had been ruling themselves (mostly) just fine for over a century, and had come to see “virtual representation” as repression. As Edmund Burke pointed out, having Parliament change the rules of the game after a century of letting the colonies handle their own affairs was not the way to keep their loyalty. As one of my favorite authors put it, why should you keep faith with a government that fails to keep faith with you?

It does not miss the point. It might not address your point though.

The reason that the taxes were imposed in the first place was because Britain built a debt protected the colonies during the French and Indian Wars.

Some taxes were simply their fair share... and again, they were paying less than subjects in Britain who did not even have anything to do with America.

 

[Deuce]

Surely history's biggest colonizer wouldn't have wielded this additional power to conquer more!

 

[Doug64]

It does not miss the point. It might not address your point though.

The reason that the taxes were imposed in the first place was because Britain built a debt protected the colonies during the French and Indian Wars.

Some taxes were simply their fair share... and again, they were paying less than subjects in Britain who did not even have anything to do with America.

True, but still doesn’t change the fact that the colonists believed that direct taxation by Parliament was taxation without representation, and unconscionable interference with their right to govern themselves through their own legislatures. Even when accepting the tax would have meant paying less in total, such as the tea tax, they refused to go along with it—one Boston Tea Party, to order.

 

[Bodi]

True, but still doesn’t change the fact that the colonists believed that direct taxation by Parliament was taxation without representation, and unconscionable interference with their right to govern themselves through their own legislatures. Even when accepting the tax would have meant paying less in total, such as the tea tax, they refused to go along with it—one Boston Tea Party, to order.

I think we are on the same page...

 

[Doug64]

A better question than “What if the American Revolution hadn’t happened?” is “What if the colonists had lost the American Revolution?” Certainly, it’s a lot easier to believe that outcome was possible, there’s multiple points where things could have turned out a little differently with major butterfly effects. There’s multiple points where Washington could have been killed, for instance, from battles during the Revolution all the way back to the original ambush of General Braddock’s army during the French & Indian War. Or what if the French had decided to stay out of the war, so the colonists never received more than a handful of French volunteers?

 

[Noodlegawd]

The world might have been a better place if the American Revolution had never happened, according to Andrew Roberts, author of The Last King of America: The Misunderstood Reign of George III.

In a review of the book in the February 7, 2022, edition of National Review, Roberts is quoted: “a world in which the American Revolution never took place could have been one in which a united British-American global empire would have been far too powerful for Kaiser Wilhelm II to threaten war in 1914, so no Bolshevik Revolution, no Adolf Hitler, no Cold War.” He also suggested, “British and Canadian liberals joining with Northern abolitionists might have voted to abolish slavery in the 1830s or 1840s, sparing the United States its Civil War.”

As a believer in the Multiverse, I suspect Roberts’ alternative timeline exists somewhere.

On the other hand, the entire Western World might still be living under monarchy, and the French and the British might still be going at each other.

 

[Nickyjo]

Silly babble from Mr. Roberts.
No country has brought the freedom and opportunity that the United States has.
That is all.

As much as I disagree with your incorrect analysis of what the US has meant, being familiar with the history of Latin America, one must concede that the US has indeed made great contributions to human freedom. The French and Vietnamese cited us in their revolutions. One has to accept that a country that resisted British imperialism in 1776, ironically imposed its own version on Native Americans, arguably stole the southwest from Mexico, and matched the Soviets, country for country, in our extinguishing of liberty in our sphere of influence. That our domestic policy has been exemplary - leaving aside our treatment of blacks - doesn't excuse the tyranny we imposed elsewhere.

 

[Nickyjo]

A better question than “What if the American Revolution hadn’t happened?” is “What if the colonists had lost the American Revolution?” Certainly, it’s a lot easier to believe that outcome was possible, there’s multiple points where things could have turned out a little differently with major butterfly effects. There’s multiple points where Washington could have been killed, for instance, from battles during the Revolution all the way back to the original ambush of General Braddock’s army during the French & Indian War. Or what if the French had decided to stay out of the war, so the colonists never received more than a handful of French volunteers?

When I decided to become a conscientious objector in the 1960s, something I knew I would do as a kid in the 1950s, I ran through the wars the US had fought to see if I would have wanted to participate. As to the American Revolution, I couldn't see myself killing a stranger so that the US wouldn't wind up like Canada. I would have paid the Stamp Tax gladly. "Taxation with out representation" was a drag, but sorry George, hardly "tyranny" worth shooting someone's nuts off over.

 

[Common Sense 1]

As much as I disagree with your incorrect analysis of what the US has meant, being familiar with the history of Latin America, one must concede that the US has indeed made great contributions to human freedom. The French and Vietnamese cited us in their revolutions. One has to accept that a country that resisted British imperialism in 1776, ironically imposed its own version on Native Americans, arguably stole the southwest from Mexico, and matched the Soviets, country for country, in our extinguishing of liberty in our sphere of influence. That our domestic policy has been exemplary - leaving aside our treatment of blacks - doesn't excuse the tyranny we imposed elsewhere.

Are you a US citizen? Have you taken advantage of all that the United States has to offer? No person or country is perfect.
Bad decisions and mistakes were made as the country was formed and grew. The united states has tried to correct/remedy the problems. Look across the world and you will find every nation has history of wrongs. It's the nature when men are in charge.

 

[Nickyjo]

Are you a US citizen? Have you taken advantage of all that the United States has to offer? No person or country is perfect.
Bad decisions and mistakes were made as the country was formed and grew. The united states has tried to correct/remedy the problems. Look across the world and you will find every nation has history of wrongs. It's the nature when men are in charge.

Am a US citizen, proud of it, and proud that I defended or explained US actions that seemed terrible to Mexicans when I lived there or to Europeans when I visited. Your comments are indeed correct. My only concerns in this area is the occasional arrogance of my fellow Americans, the sort of "our shit doesn't stink" patriotism one used to find and that still surfaces occasionally. That was understandable given our contributions in WWII and thererafter, our unmatched postwar prosperity, and our general good will. But it's almost that we needed the tragedy and horror of Vietnam to let us learn that yes, we could screw up, big time. When we think of America's role in the world, it's often about the Marshall Plan. Others think of Grenada and El Salvador.

 

[Tigerace117]

Am a US citizen, proud of it, and proud that I defended or explained US actions that seemed terrible to Mexicans when I lived there or to Europeans when I visited. Your comments are indeed correct. My only concerns in this area is the occasional arrogance of my fellow Americans, the sort of "our shit doesn't stink" patriotism one used to find and that still surfaces occasionally. That was understandable given our contributions in WWII and thererafter, our unmatched postwar prosperity, and our general good will. But it's almost that we needed the tragedy and horror of Vietnam to let us learn that yes, we could screw up, big time. When we think of America's role in the world, it's often about the Marshall Plan. Others think of Grenada and El Salvador.

Grenada wasn’t even a bad thing. We only intervened AFTER the Prime Minister— who was firm Marxist Leninist and personal friend of Castro— was overthrown and executed by fanatics within his own party. Hell, the people of the island literally commemorate the US invasion with a holiday, which they call Thanksgiving Day.

 

[Nickyjo]

Grenada wasn’t even a bad thing. We only intervened AFTER the Prime Minister— who was firm Marxist Leninist and personal friend of Castro— was overthrown and executed by fanatics within his own party. Hell, the people of the island literally commemorate the US invasion with a holiday, which they call Thanksgiving Day.

So be it. Good for them. But Reagan was hostile to Grenada before those events. As with his policies in Central America, it wasn't murder or oppression that bothered him -- he praised a guy who committed genocide in Guatemala -- it was the left. Do you think he would have cared if it was right-wingers who had killed Bishop? And Grenada wandered into the bar after we had our asses kicked by terrorists in Lebanon earlier that week. It was like a "safety valve" pass in football: the QB is in getting tackled by the pass rush, so he dishes off a dinky throw to a running back.

Sorry for the mixed metaphors. Cant help myself.

 

[Tigerace117]

So be it. Good for them. But Reagan was hostile to Grenada before those events. As with his policies in Central America, it wasn't murder or oppression that bothered him -- he praised a guy who committed genocide in Guatemala -- it was the left. Do you think he would have cared if it was right-wingers who had killed Bishop? And Grenada wandered into the bar after we had our asses kicked by terrorists in Lebanon earlier that week. It was like a "safety valve" pass in football: the QB is in getting tackled by the pass rush, so he dishes off a dinky throw to a running back.

Sorry for the mixed metaphors. Cant help myself.

Being “hostile” towards a communist country is hardly a bad thing, and no amount of whataboutism can change the fact that the Grenadans— to this day— appreciate the overthrow of the fanatics who’d taken over their country.

 

[bomberfox]

World war I would have still happened, the treaty of versailles would have probably been more harsh. The concept of Aryan supremacy might have taken hold in another nation, that concept as well as violent antisemitism were very widespread. Without democratic reforms spurned on by the revolution, it might have been Great Britain that lead the axis charge. Who knows.

 

[bomberfox]

So be it. Good for them. But Reagan was hostile to Grenada before those events. As with his policies in Central America, it wasn't murder or oppression that bothered him -- he praised a guy who committed genocide in Guatemala -- it was the left. Do you think he would have cared if it was right-wingers who had killed Bishop? And Grenada wandered into the bar after we had our asses kicked by terrorists in Lebanon earlier that week. It was like a "safety valve" pass in football: the QB is in getting tackled by the pass rush, so he dishes off a dinky throw to a running back.

Sorry for the mixed metaphors. Cant help myself.

Reagan didnt seem to mind Apartheid going on nor did we seem to mind when it was our right wing dictators doing the murdering but the cold war was quite messy.

The chicago boys that had his ear mistakenly believed that capitalism would bring freedom to a fascist state.

 

[Doug64]

… and matched the Soviets, country for country, in our extinguishing of liberty in our sphere of influence.

I wasn’t aware that Western Europe and Japan turned into poverty-stricken totalitarian hellholes.

 

[mrjurrs]

The world might have been a better place if the American Revolution had never happened, according to Andrew Roberts, author of The Last King of America: The Misunderstood Reign of George III.

In a review of the book in the February 7, 2022, edition of National Review, Roberts is quoted: “a world in which the American Revolution never took place could have been one in which a united British-American global empire would have been far too powerful for Kaiser Wilhelm II to threaten war in 1914, so no Bolshevik Revolution, no Adolf Hitler, no Cold War.” He also suggested, “British and Canadian liberals joining with Northern abolitionists might have voted to abolish slavery in the 1830s or 1840s, sparing the United States its Civil War.”

As a believer in the Multiverse, I suspect Roberts’ alternative timeline exists somewhere.

Just because there wasn't a revolution didn't mean that the UK and the colonies were buddies. Remember the War of 1812.

 

[Nickyjo]

I wasn’t aware that Western Europe and Japan turned into poverty-stricken totalitarian hellholes.

Huh? I was comparing Soviet actions to crush wayward nations in East Europe with US actions in our own hemisphere. Sorry I wasn’t clear.

 

[Doug64]

@Nickyjo, I took you at your word. West Germany looked a lot better than East Germany, just like the rest of the countries we freed during WWII that became part of the American Protectorate. For that matter, Japan was much better off being conquered by the US than by the USSR. And South Korea looks a lot better than North Korea. South Vietnam wasn't in the greatest shape, but it wasn't the US-supported regime whose tyranny resulted in the Boat People. And while our treatment of various Central and South American countries wasn't always the greatest, I can't think of anything comparable to the USSR's violent imposition of Communist totalitarianism.

 

[yankintx]

The world might have been a better place if the American Revolution had never happened, according to Andrew Roberts, author of The Last King of America: The Misunderstood Reign of George III.

In a review of the book in the February 7, 2022, edition of National Review, Roberts is quoted: “a world in which the American Revolution never took place could have been one in which a united British-American global empire would have been far too powerful for Kaiser Wilhelm II to threaten war in 1914, so no Bolshevik Revolution, no Adolf Hitler, no Cold War.” He also suggested, “British and Canadian liberals joining with Northern abolitionists might have voted to abolish slavery in the 1830s or 1840s, sparing the United States its Civil War.”

As a believer in the Multiverse, I suspect Roberts’ alternative timeline exists somewhere.

Eventually the US would have broken away, as did much of the British Empire.

The rest is pie in the sky, prefer reality

 

[Nickyjo]

@Nickyjo, I took you at your word. West Germany looked a lot better than East Germany, just like the rest of the countries we freed during WWII that became part of the American Protectorate. For that matter, Japan was much better off being conquered by the US than by the USSR. And South Korea looks a lot better than North Korea. South Vietnam wasn't in the greatest shape, but it wasn't the US-supported regime whose tyranny resulted in the Boat People. And while our treatment of various Central and South American countries wasn't always the greatest, I can't think of anything comparable to the USSR's violent imposition of Communist totalitarianism.

Have to repeat what I said elsewhere. My comment was about the horrible symmetry between the Soviet/US actions in Hungary/Guatemala in the 50s, Czechoslovakia/Dominican Republic in the 60s, and Poland/Chile in the 70s. I remember a great message of support and solidarity from Polish dissidents to Chilean dissidents. The Poles understood the reality of oppression, even if someone like Reagan couldn’t. Reagan put a candle in the White House window to indicate support for jailed Polish labor leaders and others. Why couldnt he have done the same for Chileans?

 

[Doug64]

Have to repeat what I said elsewhere. My comment was about the horrible symmetry between the Soviet/US actions in Hungary/Guatemala in the 50s, Czechoslovakia/Dominican Republic in the 60s, and Poland/Chile in the 70s. I remember a great message of support and solidarity from Polish dissidents to Chilean dissidents. The Poles understood the reality of oppression, even if someone like Reagan couldn’t. Reagan put a candle in the White House window to indicate support for jailed Polish labor leaders and others. Why couldnt he have done the same for Chileans?

Again, I’m not seeing the symmetry—I don’t recall the US military invading Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, or Chile in order to impose a totalitarian government. When you make the claim that we “matched the Soviets, country for country, in our extinguishing of liberty in our sphere of influence,” you don’t get to pick and choose—you have to look at all the countries, in our entire sphere of influence, at the full range of the damage inflicted. Yes, there were cases where we got it wrong, but never as wrong as the Soviets did. And can you point to a single case where the Soviets got it right?

 

[Nickyjo]

Again, I’m not seeing the symmetry—I don’t recall the US military invading Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, or Chile in order to impose a totalitarian government. When you make the claim that we “matched the Soviets, country for country, in our extinguishing of liberty in our sphere of influence,” you don’t get to pick and choose—you have to look at all the countries, in our entire sphere of influence, at the full range of the damage inflicted. Yes, there were cases where we got it wrong, but never as wrong as the Soviets did. And can you point to a single case where the Soviets got it right?

Well, I suppose I could be factious and say they did support women’s rights in Afghanistan — true, but pretty small potatoes given the atrocity that was their invasion.

One has to distinguish between US domestic policy from our foreign policy and its effect on other countries, how dissidents there viewed our actions. Guatemala: the US, upset that the United Fruit Company lost out to regulations imposed by an elected govt, overthrew that government. The new guy arrived on a US embassy plane. There followed decades of horrible murders of tens of thousands (perhaps 200k total) by death squads. The last dictator, praised by Reagan was later convicted of genocide. He admitted his responsibility, said he would accept punishment, but reportedly suggested that Reagan be put up against the wall next to him, given Reagan’s support. Human rights abuses in those dark years were far in access of anything the tyrant Castro, for example, visited on his people. An American priest friend of mine, missionary there, whose parishioner was murdered and found with a note saying the priest was next, joked that anything beginning with “co” would be targeted: communism obviously, but community, council, committee, cooperative. Whir this was going on, Reagan granted asylum to 1% of Guatemalan, while he was protecting *all* Poles. Things got more fair under Bush 1. Dom Republic: US invaded in 1965. The excuse? Fear of communism. There were too many leftist on one side of a conflict inching towards civil war. There as elsewhere, communism in Cuba was a right wing dictator’s best friend, as he could yell “commie” and expect a Pavlovian response from some US leaders. Chile: the US policy was to “make the economy scream” when the people elected a Marxist. Kissinger said we can’t allow this to happen to a country due to the “irresponsibility of its own people.” To a Chilean having electrodes attached to body parts, it didn’t matter that the US was more free than the USSR. Couple ironies I remember from my work with Amnesty International dealing with asylum seekers from countries left and right. One, the expression of solidarity from workers in Poland to those jailed in Chile in the time after Russia’s crackdown. They got it, Reagan couldn’t. The other, an article in a northern South American country journal, I forget which country, analyzing Jimmy Carter’s human rights policy. Given the US’s record in the hemisphere, they were perplexed that he was critical of abuses in right wing countries there, and cynically chalked it up to wanting to counter the national traumas that were Vietnam and Watergate. They were wrong, but hard to blame them.

 

[Doug64]

@Nickyjo, so now that you’ve given your thumbnail history lesson on Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, and Chile, tell us all about the atrocities the US committed in West Germany, South Korea, and Japan—or alternatively, tell us about the countries where the USSR was the benevolent supporter (of a government that wasn’t as evil as it was—Cuba doesn’t count). After all, if you are going to argue that the US is no better than the USSR (“country by country,” you said), then you have to consider the totality of the record.