What America Might Look Like If It Lost the Revolutionary War

The United States of America exists only because a group of revolutionaries took up guns and battled against a far greater British empire to gain freedom. Everything may have easily turned out differently, and the American Revolution could never have happened. Check out today's spectacular new narrative to explore what the United States would be like if the American Revolution had never occurred! 💱🤯💭💱

The Lexington and Concord battles a ragtag colonial army versus the might of the British Empire in the opening exchanges of the American Revolution The massacre of nonviolent protesters in Boston and the tax increases that sparked the Boston Tea Party were just two examples of the English forces' years of harsh treatment. What if 700 British soldiers had been sent to destroy colonial supplies and put an end to the rebellion before it could begin? The world watched as the ultimate underdogs, led by George Washington, defeated the forces of Great Britain and founded the United States of America. Paul Revere and other riders gave the British an advance warning, but in this version of events, a stray butterfly frightened the horses of the warning team, preventing them from ever reaching their destination.

The British swept in, seized the weapon caches, and detained the leaders of the rebel ring. The British interrogated prominent founding fathers like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, who likely denied any involvement, but one thing was certain. In this timeline, there would not be an American revolution. The potential revolution had been put down by King George III's tough tactics, and he would probably take precautions to make sure it never happened again. In order to quell any indication of rebellion, British troops would keep a noticeable presence in the colonies. It is likely that after a close call, George will be advised by those he trusts to hold off on any new taxes for a while because the colonies were a valuable resource.

George was infamous for having the harshest approach towards the colonies, which led to increased resistance. As long as George III was in charge, it is therefore likely that the status quo would have persisted for the following few decades. And that would be while George III, who has a reputation for being somewhat disastrous, actually held the record for the longest reign in British history with a reign of almost sixty years. George IV, who took over as his successor and only ruled for ten years, was regarded as a dilettante. His advisors had a significant impact on how he ruled, and because of this, it is likely that they would have advised him to maintain his father's colonial policies for the duration of his reign. There were, after all, events to attend in London, but in the colonies, things have changed considerably.

Franklin and Washington likely did not have anywhere near the impact on history that they did in our timeline because many of the founding fathers who helped define the march to independence have since passed away. It's likely that an independence-minded movement still exists in the colonies, one that is less concerned with achieving independence than with fostering the cultures of the colonies. Since the British territories they are now a part of are much larger than the original United States, which was only made up of thirteen colonies after the Revolution, they have plenty of space to do it. This includes much of what is now Canada. And international crises may have an equal impact on events in England. Even though the American Revolution did not take place during this time period, it is likely that the French Revolution did.

While it's possible that the American events influenced it, the circumstances there were primarily driven by poverty and populist rage against an out-of-touch monarch, and while it's possible that they helped to influence it, they also quickly spiraled out of control, and the Americans who supported it in our timeline were rather ineffective at pushing it in their direction—and some were even imprisoned for their efforts. The King and Marie Antoinette still ended up facing Madame Guillotine, Danton and Robespierre still managed to rise, and the Reign of Terror still plunged France into anarchy before it finally fell, paving the way for Emperor Napoleon to ascend. Britain would then have the leverage it needed as a result.

According to our timeline, longtime rivals France and Britain saw their empires drastically decline in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. During the Seven Years War, Britain lost many of its colonies, while France lost most of its land to Britain. As a result, Britain gained control over Quebec, which is home to many French-speaking people, and gained a stronghold in North America. Therefore, it is likely that Britain would be able to take America's place in the Louisiana Purchase in the early 1800s, giving the country near-total dominance of North America with only Spain to challenge it. On the other hand, France would be forced to deal with political upheaval and be relegated to rump territory on the continent.

However, the dominant nation would be able to overcome a significant obstacle. For the majority of the first 70 years of its existence, the history of the United States was one of expansion, but slavery was causing a serious crisis. Because it wanted to placate the southern states, the new nation decided to keep the oppressive system. Even though it ended the slave trade in 1807, this only encouraged it to enact stricter laws that would keep its population of slaves in a state of enduring servitude. The United States did not abolish slavery until the 1860s, following a bloody civil war, and even then, it took more than a century to address the system of racial oppression in the south. However, things would be very different in this timeline. You might assume that development would be even more sluggish under a colonial power. After all, alongside other colonial powers, Britain contributed to bringing the practice of slavery to the continent of North America. However, the abolition of the slave trade occurred in Great Britain the same year that it did in the United States, and abolitionist members of Parliament continued to push for the institution's permanent abolition.

As a result, Great Britain passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833, outlawing the ownership of slaves within its borders and in all of its controlled territories, with the exception of those overseen by the East India Company. That included the vast territories of North America. So how does this play out across the pond? Because Great Britain was not an agriculturally-based market, the abolition of slavery there went relatively smoothly. It was a small island that quickly rose to prominence as India's center. Even if the United States hasn't yet achieved independence, the likelihood is still high that its territorial makeup is similar. You have the more industrialized northern states and the more agricultural southern states, which both use slaves much more heavily.

Additionally, there may be some rebellion as word spreads that the institution may be ending. Is it time for a second American revolution instead of a civil war? If the United States had lost a protracted revolution in the 1770s, however, things might have turned out very differently. Instead, the British put up a relatively weak fight to put an end to it. Thus, the colonies would have been permitted to advance at their own pace while still being governed by the Crown, and they would have all likely had their own governors and local political leaders. There are some people who are such major players and who are so determined to be heard that it's almost impossible to imagine they wouldn't emerge in any situation. It's impossible to know if someone who was a governor or senator in the United States would still be well-known here. Thus, John C. arrives,

Calhoun enters the battle. The ferocious South Carolina radical gained notoriety in the US as the sole Vice President to lead a coup against his own President by aiding South Carolina in a tariff dispute with the federal government. In the years leading up to the American Civil War, he would go on to become one of the most well-known figures, refusing to make any accommodations to abolitionists and calling for secession if the institution of slavery was threatened. He would pass away ten years before the Civil War broke out, but many consider his vehement speech in Congress to be the tipping point that made war inevitable. The crisis surrounding slavery also occurs earlier in this timeline, by several decades. When news of the Slavery Abolition Act spreads from Parliament in 1833, Calhoun is a healthy 51-year-old fire-breather rather than a dying old warhorse in 1850.

His chances of becoming a major player in colonial politics in South Carolina are good; he may even become governor. The chances are good that, if efforts to convince the Crown to reject the bill fell on deaf ears, he would be ready to defy them and try to establish the Confederacy thirty years early. He also demonstrated that he was anything but timid when it came to opposing the government. But this conflict would be quite different. With the addition of Canada's much larger territory, the country's map appears slightly different in this timeline. Texas might not be a part of the United States today, but Great Britain's involvement in the southern border and desire to annex Spanish territory seem unlikely. This means that in comparison to one of the largest empires the world has ever known, the Confederacy, which consists of the southern states from Virginia to Florida, is little more than a rump state.

The Confederacy gained significant early victories and even made inroads into the North in places like Pennsylvania during the US Civil War, but this time around, the odds are against the Confederacy and favor a much quicker conclusion to the conflict, because British troops will soon arrive. Early rebellions tend to be fierce and catch the colonists off guard. Because the north would not be anticipating a fight from their fellow colonies, the chances are good that the southern troops will be able to take some territory and defend their area. But the Crown would probably react vehemently once they learned what was happening. While the United Kingdom remained neutral during the American Civil War and even considered assisting the Confederacy to weaken their longtime adversaries, this time the entire British Empire would be descending upon the rebels.

And the man in charge would play a significant part in it. William IV, George IV's younger brother and one of the oldest kings to ever ascend to the throne, succeeded him after George IV's death in 1830 and lack of heirs. 65 years old. Although he only held the throne for seven years because of his advanced age, he was one of the most important monarchs of the time. He supported ending slavery, limiting child labor, and enhancing the welfare system. He was a reformer and a forceful leader. However, he was opposed to a rebellion because he thought it would weaken the British Empire and just like the first, the second American Revolution would also end in failure. The southern rebellion's early victories would be transitory as reinforcements from Britain poured over, bringing soldiers and weapons.

Any colonial resistance would be met with vastly superior forces, and it is likely that the southern slave owners would suffer significant early losses. A wise move on William IV's part might be to offer them the chance to submit, but Calhoun, who spearheaded the uprising, is unlikely to accept the offer. As a result, his army would be destroyed, and the British crown would probably not treat him with the same consideration that it did for Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. In the American colonies, slavery as a system was abolished by Lee. And from there, things might turn out surprisingly well. The assassination of Abraham Lincoln put an end to attempts to enforce racial equality, and a compromise over a potentially rigged election a decade later led to the failure of the majority of reconstruction efforts.

In our timeline, the path to ending slavery was rocky. The South would experience racial discrimination and segregation for a century as a result. However, in this scenario, the British would be in charge of managing the fallout, and they probably would maintain tighter control over the southern colonies. The northern colonies' contribution to the war effort would spare the colonies as a whole from punishment, but the rebellious areas would probably experience a longer period of increased British presence, and any local leaders who supported the rebellion would be permanently removed from office. A new figure, on the other hand, would be critical in a lot of this. By 1837, the ailing William IV would be dead, and in the most recent complicated succession, his niece Victoria would succeed him as king rather than a new monarch.

Victoria became queen at the age of 18, and her reign was one of the most important in British history. She was a fervent advocate of British expansionism and would rule for sixty-three years, the longest reign in the British crown's history up to that point. Therefore, a single woman's whims would have a significant influence over the colonies' fate. Since Britain became a constitutional monarchy in 1688, more limitations on the monarch's authority have been imposed. That meant some monarchs were much more powerful than others, and Parliament had just as much influence on the laws of the time as Queen Victoria did. Victoria would take over a British empire that was at its height and a colonial system in North America that was in flux.

However, the colonial leadership would be in good standing with the British government after aiding in quelling the southern states' uprising, and the region would come to be regarded as the jewel in the crown of the territories. This implies that a significant question is likely to arise. What about Canada? It was a much more subdued affair, with the British territories holding conferences to request independence and negotiate an exit from the United Kingdom. Everyone knows how the United States gained independence in our timeline, but what about Canada? In many ways, the British were prepared to let it go since there was no revolution. Many English-Canadian nationalists wanted to unite the territories and strengthen their control over French-speaking Quebec.

They wanted the country to defend itself in order to relieve them of the financial burden. But there wasn't a strong desire for a hard break because there wasn't much hostility with the parent nation. As a result, when Canada gained its independence, it made the decision to keep the Queen as its head of state and to remain a member of the Commonwealth while gaining full autonomy over all aspects of its government. In this alternate history, could the United Territories have experienced the same thing? Possibly, but there are some obstacles. One difference between the two countries is that the United States has far more resources than Canada and a much more fertile landscape. Britain gains control over almost the entire continent when its territory is nearly doubled, but this also results in a significant increase in the cost of administering the area.

The likelihood is that Victoria and Parliament would be amenable to these negotiations for independence, but they might drive a harder bargain if they wanted favorable trade agreements with the new country over the long term to ensure access to its resources. Whatever the agreement's conditions, it is likely that they will be better than what the British crown imposed upon them when they were a colony. Thus, this new nation is born into a completely new world. The United States of North America, which included most of the present-day United States and all of Canada, was born in an instant and quickly grew to become the largest country in the world by area. It would have the advantages of decades of British Empire development as well as the scars from a recent uprising. But it's not the only nation in North America to profit from this period of growth.

Spain probably had the southwest largely to itself because the American Revolution never took place. The magic 8-ball predicts a cloudy future, so it's possible that southwest North America would still be ruled by the Spanish crown, which currently controls Mexico as well as the majority of what is now the American southwest. Without the American Revolution's boost to the hopes of colonized countries worldwide, would Mexico have successfully won its own war in 1821? Is a new war on the horizon? Probably not, even though Great Britain hasn't completely given up on the former British colonies in North America. Instead, they are probably thought of as extended family, so the likelihood is that you will join the fight if your cousin is punched.

As a result, neither Spain nor the other nation would attempt to annex any territory from the new nation. While a second war between the two empires is theoretically possible—possibly sparked by circumstances similar to those that led to the Spanish-American War—it is unlikely to break out right away because it would be a much bigger conflict.

Certified. You're definitely going to miss out.

Make sure to always be updated. Possibly daily. 😁