History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

[MichVandal]

I'm, um, starting to sense a pattern of whitepowerwashing in our US History books...

Starting? Took a while...

That has been going on for a long time. One of the classics is the Civil War was about State's rights.

[aparch]

Broken links

I think I fixed them. I must have broken them when I edited in the Wiki link.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRpCyU4f/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Phillips_Upham

[St. Clown]

In another installment of "Why the f*ck did we never learn about the cool people in US History," meet Commander D.P. Upham.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRpCyU4f/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Phillips_Upham

I'm, um, starting to sense a pattern of whitepowerwashing in our US History books...

Broken links

[aparch]

In another installment of "Why the f*ck did we never learn about the cool people in US History," meet Commander D.P. Upham.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRpCyU4f/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Phillips_Upham

I'm, um, starting to sense a pattern of whitepowerwashing in our US History books...

[Jimjamesak]

I kind of agree with Kepler, America would probably just Balkanize, Canada too. You’d have New England, a greater New York, a greater Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, Ontario, Quebec etc. The Eastern shores of the Mississippi would be a war zone.

[MichVandal]

This is assuming an "American" identity even developed, or that independence would ever be sought. It is entirely possible that instead the culture of a New England -- a broader, wider idyllic English identity in the tradition of Wordsworth and Keats (Whitman would fit right in) may have taken root. Rather than defining ourselves as anti-European we might instead have become uber-European, carrying the seeds of ancient Greece into the Western sunset. You can imagine all sorts of ways that would appeal to both cultural and mercantile narratives. America as England's "city of the broad shoulders," writ large.

Well, at the time, greed was the American identity for those who were willing to pay for for the war. So there has always been an American identity. It was a matter of convincing the rest of the population to go with it.

Once the greed made a nation, they had to let the smart people tie it all together. Without those lofty ideals, it was not an easy thing to convince a simple farmer to send his kids off to die for a tea smuggler.

And I think it could be suggested that it was kind of a desperate move to give slaves freedom to fight the revolution- given how hard it was to bring troops across the ocean AND defend the rest of the world at the same time. Part of the reason we won was that it became so hard to defend the colonies among the rest of the world and the war with France. It was a war of economic attrition that we barely won.

[Kepler]

Meaning there would have been no reason to grant independence to North America had the US not existed.

Yes, that's what I was trying to get at in my verbose way. Nor may there have been any desire.

The big war in the near term is Britain v Spain (likely supported by France). Britain wins eventually because of sea dominance. Britain cannot extend sovereignty over the former Spanish Habsburg American and Asian territories, but they can project enough force via their North American and Indian bridgeheads to sever those areas from Spanish control and "liberate" them.



Those possessions which are culturally distinct enough are "liberated" by the British and become newly created states, with advantageous trading relations with Britain across British-patrolled oceans.



At this point it's pretty much game over for global conquest so with industrialization comes an eventual world war of EVERYBODY against the British vampire squid. But British financial and industrial power is off the charts. They (we) are pretty much the Harkonnen in this scenario, with everybody else as the Fremen.

[Kepler]

Given the economy of the south, I really don't see that sticking. It's a good theory, but when your goods are so very labor intensive- like cotton and tobacco- it would have been almost impossible to end it without force or some serious give back. And even so, while slavery was abolished- they didn't treat their people all that well.... see India.

And it would have been a very long wait- Canada didn't get partial independence until 1867, and not complete independence since the '70s. Given all of the cheating of taxes and smuggling going on, there would be some conflict at some point.

This is assuming an "American" identity even developed, or that independence would ever be sought. It is entirely possible that instead the culture of a New England -- a broader, wider idyllic English identity in the tradition of Wordsworth and Keats (Whitman would fit right in) may have taken root. Rather than defining ourselves as anti-European we might instead have become uber-European, carrying the seeds of ancient Greece into the Western sunset. You can imagine all sorts of ways that would appeal to both cultural and mercantile narratives. America as England's "city of the broad shoulders," writ large.

[MichVandal]

I'm guessing if we are still Britain no Louisiana Purchase and then during the Napoleanic Wars we have ourselves a vicious colonial war. On the other hand, we either don't have the Civil War, or we have the South rebel once London abolishes slavery and Grant gets the OBE.

Or we corrupt Britain and they never abolish slavery because the ROI is higher.

The US overtook the British Empire in population in 1860 and in GDP in 1890. Had we stayed in, we (and Canada, who we never separate from) might have wound up the tail wagging the dog and have never left. Britain would simply have become a globally dominant empire with a London-New York financial axis, an Atlantic core in the original islands and the American Atlantic shore, and then wild hinterlands with millions of weird, colorful indigenous peoples in the America West, Egypt, and India.

UK "overseas" possessions, 1921:

We probably would have taken Louisiana by force instead of money and treaty. France and England were at war when that happened. Just like we were at war with England.

And depending on how that turned out, conquest may have lead to a global war with Spain.

As for never leaving the UK- given when Canada went sort of independant, that's a good theory. Canada got independence at the same time the US bought Alaska, and at the time, apparently, we still assumed the US would take the entire continent- so when we got Alaska, Vancouver Island and BC would change to the US. But Canada was granted some independence, and put together a pretty loose set of colonies to keep the US from getting more territory. Meaning there would have been no reason to grant independence to North America had the US not existed.

[MichVandal]

There’s an interesting article Vox posts every year around the 4th of July that argues we’d have been better off as a nation waiting for our independence a la Canada, especially since slavery was abolished in the British Empire long before we did it.

Given the economy of the south, I really don't see that sticking. It's a good theory, but when your goods are so very labor intensive- like cotton and tobacco- it would have been almost impossible to end it without force or some serious give back. And even so, while slavery was abolished- they didn't treat their people all that well.... see India.

And it would have been a very long wait- Canada didn't get partial independence until 1867, and not complete independence since the '70s. Given all of the cheating of taxes and smuggling going on, there would be some conflict at some point.

[Kepler]

There’s an interesting article Vox posts every year around the 4th of July that argues we’d have been better off as a nation waiting for our independence a la Canada, especially since slavery was abolished in the British Empire long before we did it.

I'm guessing if we are still Britain no Louisiana Purchase and then during the Napoleanic Wars we have ourselves a vicious colonial war. On the other hand, we either don't have the Civil War, or we have the South rebel once London abolishes slavery and Grant gets the OBE.

Or we corrupt Britain and they never abolish slavery because the ROI is higher.

The US overtook the British Empire in population in 1860 and in GDP in 1890. Had we stayed in, we (and Canada, who we never separate from) might have wound up the tail wagging the dog and have never left. Britain would simply have become a globally dominant empire with a London-Toronto-New York financial axis, an Atlantic core in the original islands and the American Atlantic shore, and then wild hinterlands with millions of weird, colorful indigenous peoples in the North American West, Egypt, India, and Australia.

UK "overseas" possessions, 1921:

[psych]

There’s an interesting article Vox posts every year around the 4th of July that argues we’d have been better off as a nation waiting for our independence a la Canada, especially since slavery was abolished in the British Empire long before we did it.

[Kepler]

TIL the British promised emancipation to slaves who rose up against their rebel masters.

[Kepler]

TIL the number of Americans who were legally held as slaves throughout all history was roughly equal to the present population of Michigan (10M).

[aparch]

I swear to God I learn a little more history each week thanks to TikTok.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRgRoE6a/