What would have you bong landers done to us had we not won the war for independence?
What would have you bong landers done to us had we not won the war for independence?
we probably would've dominated the Empire by the mid-19th century honestly
honestly no
Take your food. Like they did with Irish. Some genocide, deportations.
You'd be very small compared to now though
You mean as in punishment? Probably nothing, most of parliament didn't even want to prosecute the war to begin with.
ignored india
maybe leave europe after napoleon came around
africa may have been more french or portugese
Same thing as canada, have healthcare education less niggers and spics
>ignored the most profitable part of the Empire
You yanks love to overstate how important you were to us
Your picture is very relevant though.
were the American colonies still under the crown our population growth, availability of resources, and potential for industrial expansion would've inevitably led to us competing with the power and economy of the British isles
Settlers would've gone west regardless and we would've probably had states akin to the Boer Republics out west
You have to he a nigger.
dispute a single thing I said
>Wealthiest part of the First Empire outside of the Isles was not important
>implying brits would have not completed the usa's manifest destiny
>implying being the only source of cotton and tobacco in the world wouldnt have been profitable
>implying native americaans put up any resistaance compared to india
>implying we arnt closer geographically compared to india
heck just imagine the great game with you and russia if the usa never left
You would be driving on the wrong side.
Stupid nigger no one in that time considered you human.
If it were so important then why wasn't it the number 1 priority to keep a hold of at the time
hahaha
Probably would have. Eastern America would have grown to become the most populous (in terms of Anglos), industrialised and wealthy part of the Empire.
All Hail Brittania!
because you knew you couldnt win another war in north america (its vast land, not vast costal cities to blockade)
if the uk had set up a centralized colonial government before the french and indian war then we wouldnt know how easy it was to revolt(or had any motive to)
you had to decide between us or india in the seven years war, and you based your choice out of larger profit now instead of huge profit later
and look at the uk today, look how good colonizing india worked out for them
>If it were so important then why wasn't it the number 1 priority to keep a hold of at the time
it was until we began winning battles
we basicly vietnam'd you
So you did lose in Vietnam then
no we withdrew because we didnt want it bad enough (hippies), then south vietnam lost it
wasn't worth the trouble and you weren't really losing until the French got involved.
It wouldn't have been quite as valuable as somewhere like India, in terms of trade and production, but the US would've industrialized all the same, and have rivaled the British isles. The availability of resources and space, added with the steamer ship and other advances in transportation like the railroad would've increased the value of the colonies to being a nearly equal partner in the Empire. Americans would probably be quite influential in the Army overseas especially on the African and Indian frontiers
...
code geass
it's kind of obvious why that pissed people off so much, the North American colonies had fended off Indians in all-out conflicts for over a hundred years before the stationing of regular British units. The same with the governments, they were used to working more or less without London
Napoleon never would have sold the Louisiana Purchase to a British Colony, but we might have just annexed it during the Napoleonic Wars. It's hard to imagine the British respecting Mexican, Spanish, or Russian territory either. We'd be united with Canada, and have Alaska and our Mexican territories through force.
>imagine the great game with you and russia
>what is 19th century
>American textbooks
wew
>great game with usa under british control
alaska would probably still speak russian
the most important colonies were the caribbean (for sugar (most important), cotton, tobacco, indigo) and india.
north america's importance wasn't economic (furtrapping and shit wasn't that important really) - it just came from the fact that it was settled - whereas india was full of natives and the caribbean was like one white guy and 10000s of black slaves.
>and look at the uk today, look how good colonizing india worked out for us
brilliantly considering the industrial revolution was a result of it.
the expansion of the US was not really possible under the British. Britain would have had to fight wars against France and Spain in order to re-do the louisiana purchase and conquering of mexico.
we stole a bunchh of ideas and processes from england that no one else did, working together would have ended better
plus we had endless land to experiment in/on/with, one giant habitable laboratory to work in
Have you seen Code Geass?
Prevented you from genociding Indians. No Manifest Destiny for you
All American education and industry was imported from england.
>ut we might have just annexed it during the Napoleonic Wars. It's hard to imagine the British respecting Mexican, Spanish, or Russian territory either. We'd be united with Canada, and have Alaska and our Mexican territories through force.
>>>
> Anonymous 10/26/17(Thu)15:09:05 No.81047637▶
>
>>imagine the great game with you and russia
>>what is 19th century
It lasted 8 years and Britain's defeat caused the resignation of PM Lord North. It was a pretty big priority. America at the time was wealthy and had a population 1/3 that of Britain. It also was the main source of tobacco and cotton, two of the biggest cash crops.
we would've turned into another canada
sounds kind of nice to be honest