If our King at the time wasn't such a selfish bastard, would America be better if it was still in the British Empire?

If our King at the time wasn't such a selfish bastard, would America be better if it was still in the British Empire?

Most likely.

One look at Britain today is all you need to know the answer to that question.

In the Commonwealth maybe. We would've acquired independence eventually. The USA wouldn't be as big. The British wouldn't let the colonists expand west, which was one of the early causes for the conflict, along with the taxes. It's likely the Louisiana Purchase and the war with Mexico would have never happened under British oversight. We'd be a smaller, less magnificent possession.

We had to leave the nest, "Dad" stop being such a fag about it.

No, but Birtain would be better as a state.

I think if we still had an empire we'd still be based.
Europe would be based, possibly.

Your precious guns will be safe, it was law to own a musket in colonial America.

the british gentry treated us like shit for no reason. If they didnt we might still be in the union

The colonies were taxed to pay for the costs of a war (in part) protecting the colonies. Muh representation was a fake argument made up by smugglers like John Hancock to get more people riled up.

Nah. Early America was pretty lawless compared to the British Empire with regards to business and regulation. And the crown couldn't manage its colonies well from afar.

We'd be a fraction of our strength if we would have been paying for England's wars instead of investing in our country. Colonies existed to make the fatherland wealthy.

Yes absolutely. The founding fathers and king George should negotiated the tax rates. We would have kicked all of the niggers out of Africa together and it would be a white mans paradise

Yeah, 57 behind various parts of Canada and a buffer on the mexican border

You're taxes are far higher then they were 300 years ago.

And your decision to free the spaces didn't help either.

oi leave the beans on toast alone u cunt
also it needs grated cheese on that

No. UK invented liberalism, USA inherited it. All Anglosaxon colonies are infested with liberalism and are run by multicultural liberals. Grand mistakes have been made

No. That's what Canada did, and look at the Leaves now: spineless, feckless weaklings who WAITED to be GIVEN PERMISSION to be their own country.

Yes and you know what liberalism is against?

Colonialism.

And what is their country now?

One of the driving factor's in America's success was the people's belief in American exceptionalism, which may or may not exist if Britain still ruled.
Also who knows how our spread into the west might have gone if Britain was still in charge.

Now India on the other hand would probably be much better being ruled by Britain. Either way it would've been nice if Britain was still an empire since they were so based.

>UK invented liberalism, USA inherited it
That was the French, Jan. Rousseau a shit.

What's interesting about this is, what would have become of France?

In terms of humiliation, the Colonies was kind of like the British version of the Vietnam war. France was the cause of this humiliation, no matter how much my fellow burgers may romanticize our Revolution. But this humiliation of the British came at a great cost to France. So what would have happened if we burgers would have lost? Would there even have been a French revolution, or was that inevitable?

Would Napoleon have come to power? He sold us the Louisiana territory, creating the American breadbasket, that allowed us to become a world power.

You raided our land you potato nigger

We would of crushed the French.
>Tfw won't fight in line battles with your comrades for King and Country.

>George III
>Selfish bastard

kek

Why is Nicolas Cage a redcoat?

Well, the revolt was certainly against the King. But you have to understand how vast of a role the monopolistic trading company had on colonial decision making. They made the decisions here, not the crown. The trading companies were the crown here. We had no legal representation, and no say in anything. And the taxation was crippling, especially to the lower classes.

It would be like, having Trump established as God-emperor, but we would have to take orders from McDonalds and Facebook. It was like this in every British province, with the trading companies in charge (I don't know if it was just one trading company or more). It was just a tough time to be a burger.

>If no Napoleon ever

Yea. You probably would have crushed them eventually (srs).

Friendly reminder that it was Lord North that seriously misjudged the situation and scaled up tensions in the colonies before backing down way too late and then refusing to commit troops to the rebellion.

And it was The Earl of Shelburne who again chose not to commit troops after our victory in India and the caribbean colonies; sympathetic to the American whigs then suited for a favourable peace on their behalf and instead drew blood out of its European allies..

Like 90% of Canada isn't even habitable if it weren't for technological advancement.
There was no rush for independence cause most of our population is in one city

>We had no legal representation, and no say in anything. And the taxation was crippling, especially to the lower classes.

Thats not true at all, the thirteen colonies had a court system, a Governor and his elected staff, you just didn't have representation in Parliament which set rates for you.

as for the taxation, the Stamp duties were pittance on luxury good intended to pay for the defence of the American colonies; the US was of independance was essentially something small beihng blown out of proportions and being taken hold of by oppertunists.

maybe. A lot of the British loses during the American revolution were due to incompetence and under-estimation. If hadn't happened before, I would think that a country without money and a only a few professional soldiers challenged and won against which was at the time the largest world power the world has seen is crazy.

>A lot of the British loses during the American revolution were due to incompetence and under-estimation.

we relied almost entirely on colonial militias, Lord North didn't want to commit too many troops in fear that it would scale up the revolt when he was trying to play it down here in the UK as a minor incident that would fizzle out.

Washing ton had made major gains by the time actual reinforcements were sent

>the thirteen colonies had a court system, a Governor and his elected staff, you just didn't have representation in Parliament which set rates for you.

I meant to say no legislative representation. Thanks for correcting the record.

But Dad, they would install some sycophant governor who was reliable and loyal to the company. This was our entire problem, we had no representation, and taxes we couldn't afford (we had to make all of our own shit, out of a wilderness).

Our 2nd president was a lawyer in the British colonial court system, and actually defended the British soldiers who were accused of the Boston Massacre. But God damn, the dude really did hate England irl for a long time. You may want to check out what the colonial bros of the time had to say.

>the US was of independance was essentially something small

The US revolution was pretty humiliating in reality. You lost a literal monopoly, and for a long time, a massive trade partner. We could have had it all, but our ancestors fucked it up senpai.

No
Didn't matter if he was king or not
We wanted to be free that's why we left your shithole continent in the first place
You cunts just couldn't stand the idea of free whites existing on your planet so you came over and took the land from us.
There isn't a single king since the dynasty started other than Cromwell who would have even entertained the idea how leaving us alone like we wanted to be.
Also since all your kings were religious as fuck they would have still had loads of religious persecution which is what makes so many leave in the first place.
>Tl;dr - Britain has always been a dick so there would have never been a possibility for any other outcome

>Small band of less than 60 men come and steal some shit
>Enslave their entire island and rape/murder/subjugate/sell them into slavery
Yeah no, I don't mind 90% of what the British empire did during its reign but what you did to Ireland was fucked

>Thats not true at all, the thirteen colonies had a court system, a Governor and his elected staff, you just didn't have representation in Parliament which set rates for you. As for the taxation, the Stamp duties were pittance on luxury good intended to pay for the defence of the American colonies;

Yea, Courts and a Governor who had to enforce laws that no one in the colonies had any say over!

What was being "defended" was not the colonies, but a system to benefit England at the colonies expense. We weren't allowed to have industry. If you caught racoons, you had to send the pelts to England just to have them sewn into hats. Why should the colonists pay for the defence of laws like that?

>You lost a literal monopoly, and for a long time, a massive trade partner

Mercantilism took a last bow due to the American war, so by the treaty of Paris we'd transitioned entirely to free trade; we lost a colony and gained a trading partner, vested interests wanted to resume buisness as usual as soon as possible.

>But Dad, they would install some sycophant governor who was reliable and loyal to the company.

Yeah this is a fair shout, its the issue of runjing a country from across a sea.