NationStates Jolt Archive

How do you think history would have been changed? Note that I am speaking of the 13 original colonies. I am assuming however that more states would have been founded eventually and that this is after independance from britain. Anyway, back on track, how do you think that would have affected history?

it would of been rather easy to bring you back under are imperial thumb is what would of happened

I think this would have affected history for the better. Without a strong central government, America would have no chance to take on the mission of policing the world and thus bleeding itself dry while increasing tension through violence. Additionally, there would be no chance of establishing an oppressive apparatus that includes constant regulation of every aspect of one's life and an omni-present surveillance state, and the chance to emigrate to a more liberal nation from an illiberal one is much easier when the political units are smaller rather than bigger (voting with one's feet.)

I would be much happier in such a world.

One word -

HUZZAH!

The states would have been viciously played off each other by the world powers and then conquered one-by-one.

We never would've made it if we hadn't united. But we did, and here we are! :)

One word -

HUZZAH!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Oh my

And Hitler would have won the Second World War. There probably would have been civil war between many states. The states would likely expand themselves as they tried to colonize the rest of America, and end up just being a bunch of mini-U.S.es. occasionally a state or two would unite, creating more mini-federal governments. Slavery would still exist. We would probably have several of us involved in more altercations with Mexico and Canada.


And where is this omni-present surveillance state? I dont see it anywhere. And its probably pretty easy to emigrate to say, Canada.

Hitler would have won the Second World War.

what makes you say that:confused:

The states would have been viciously played off each other by the world powers and then conquered one-by-one.

Agreed. We definitely needed the Union back then. Today? I'm not so certain.

what makes you say that:confused:

Britain and Russia didn't have the power to fight Hitler by themselves. I'm not putting down on them, they did a shitload of work, but they really needed American industry (Lend-lease and the like), especially in the early years.

If the US hadn't united then the country would have either been reconquered by britain or stayed as petty states fighting on the Atlantic coast. The world wouldn't have changed that much (aside from technological innovations from people like Edison) until the first World War, which would have been longer, more people would've died, and Germany would've won.

what makes you say that:confused:

idk, it was continuing my line of thinking taht "we would have fought each other and played off each other," which a) would give us a very low opinion in Europe in general, possibley making us unwilling to go over there and help them, depending on how long they meddled in our affairs....and it would have turned us against each other, many people would be dead, nations ruined...thats not the type of thing i would expect most nations to recover from until about 50 years later, let alone start expanding, and placing the civil war (or a multitude of civil wars) in the mid to late 1800s, we probably would be too weak to help Britain and Russia recover from Hitlers Blitzkreig

U.S would remain a British colony...Slavery would have been abolished in 1833...I don't really know if the Industrial Revolution would have changed in the US, if at all...Canada probably would not exist as it does, English speaking loyalists wouldn't have gone there to escape the US and it would be a predominantly French, British colony...In the end the US would still probably be a very powerful country, just a lot more like Canada and maybe without some of it's western states (the area that used to be part of Mexico). Getting it's independence around the mid to late 1800s, being a constitutional Monarchy, more left-wing than it is today...

what makes you say that:confused:


I am assuming he meant that shear logistics would have allowed Hitler to have conquered Britain and later Russia although I doubt Hitler was capable of occupying Russia and Britain for more then a decade

then in the pacific theater there was nobody but America there until the closing months so Australia would have been occupied by Japan

and that's assuming everyone would have come out of world war one with about the same strength

Britain and Russia didn't have the power to fight Hitler by themselves. I'm not putting down on them, they did a shitload of work, but they really needed American industry (Lend-lease and the like), especially in the early years.

If the US hadn't united then the country would have either been reconquered by britain or stayed as petty states fighting on the Atlantic coast. The world wouldn't have changed that much (aside from technological innovations from people like Edison) until the first World War, which would have been longer, more people would've died, and Germany would've won.

not necessarily...If the US remained a British colony maybe they would have joined in the first and second world wars earlier like Canada did

Frankly, I don't see that as having been likely. The only reason the colonies would not have unified would have been in the event they did not rebel in the first place. As such they would have probably been eventually released as a country much like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand were, and until that point we would have been a commonwealth working closely with Britain.

How this would have affected history I can't truly say, but it would certainly have been different. We probably wouldn't have as much of North America as we do now though.

idk, it was continuing my line of thinking taht "we would have fought each other and played off each other," which a) would give us a very low opinion in Europe in general, possibley making us unwilling to go over there and help them, depending on how long they meddled in our affairs....and it would have turned us against each other, many people would be dead, nations ruined...thats not the type of thing i would expect most nations to recover from until about 50 years later, let alone start expanding, and placing the civil war (or a multitude of civil wars) in the mid to late 1800s, we probably would be too weak to help Britain and Russia recover from Hitlers Blitzkreig

Actually, had we not intervened in WWI, the economic shitstorm that hits Germany in reparations probably doesn't happen. A truce happens, and Germany still probably transitions to democracy, just not in shambles. Which removes the weak country he took over.

Frankly, I don't see that as having been likely. The only reason the colonies would not have unified would have been in the event they did not rebel in the first place.

Ummm... the Union was far from a sure thing. They had a very hard time getting the Constitution approved, and if a few key states like New York or Virginia hadn't signed on the Union would have fallen apart.

In the Treaty of Paris the British signed the Northwest Territories over to the individual states because many of them thought that the Union was a temporary measure, and that those colonies who couldn't stand each other to begin with would never stay united a moment longer than was necessary.

And where is this omni-present surveillance state? I dont see it anywhere. And its probably pretty easy to emigrate to say, Canada.

If you can't see it, then you're obviously not looking very hard. The Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act are just the tip of the iceberg. Not to mention the medley of alphabet soup agencies like the CIA, FBI, DEA, ATF, etc. that have shown their disregard for civil liberties through warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detainment and Waco among other things. Additionally, the fact of having multiple states right next to each other would act as a check upon the illiberality of any particular state, because in the face of any tax or regulation or slavery or the like people could hop just a few miles over to the next state which could have completely different laws. And unfortunately Canada is part of NAFTA, which has harmonized many of the regulations of the three countries under its jurisdiction and made it all the more difficult to conduct business freely.

Remember I said assuming that we had independance from britain. I guess I also meant to say that they wouldnt try to conquer us after we broke up or never united.

not necessarily...If the US remained a British colony maybe they would have joined in the first and second world wars earlier like Canada did

is what I was getting at, maybe a surprise attack four years into a global conflict would be avoided

the matter is though lord noes what the British empire could of become, it would of certainly ended the Napoleonic wars quicker thats for sure (which would of hopefully led to an avoidance of German-French-Russo hostilities)

Remember I said assuming that we had independance from britain. I guess I also meant to say that they wouldnt try to conquer us after we broke up or never united.

France or Spain your pick

The only way that that could have happened would by there being no War for Independence in the first place, and even then I imagine that there would be some kind of Albany Plan/Galloway Plan style confederation whould the disputes between Great Britain and the Colonies resolved peaceably. After that, I imagine some kind of 'canadian confederation' union would have taken place.

France or Spain your pick

France, please.

I don't think you would even want to begin to understand how things would be so different!How do you think history would have been changed? Note that I am speaking of the 13 original colonies. I am assuming however that more states would have been founded eventually and that this is after independance from britain. Anyway, back on track, how do you think that would have affected history?

France or Spain your pick

Most likely spain, france had its own troubles. But even then it was quite a distance so it would make it harder for another country to conquer the states. But still I would rather have france than spain, spain was a cruel empire.

Just remember, we actually did ask the colonies of Canada to rebel with us. They declined, and actually many Loyalists fled there from the 13 colonies.

Then we got cocky in the war of 1812 and tried to invade. They returned the favor by marching down to Washington D.C. and burning the White House down.

Britain and Russia didn't have the power to fight Hitler by themselves. I'm not putting down on them, they did a shitload of work, but they really needed American industry (Lend-lease and the like), especially in the early years.

If the US hadn't united then the country would have either been reconquered by britain or stayed as petty states fighting on the Atlantic coast. The world wouldn't have changed that much (aside from technological innovations from people like Edison) until the first World War, which would have been longer, more people would've died, and Germany would've won.

Please. USSR won WW2, America just gave an extra punch to make sure Hitler stayed down. If the USSR hadn't been able to stop Hitler from going for the oil fields, as it did at Stalingrad. Also, the USSR got to the German capital first. So thats like +2 million bonus points. :)

Canada and Mexico would not exist as we know them today. Both the northern and southern US borders were set due to wars and treaties with the US. In fact I would say that Mexico would probably be a powerful nation due to the fact that it would have most of the midwest and western US as it's own territory. Canada would probably not exist rather a nation that encompassed all of current day Canada along with the eastern US maybe minus Florida. Alaska would be owned by who knows. Russians were bound to loose it in a war or sell it to someone else.

Please. USSR won WW2, America just gave an extra punch to make sure Hitler stayed down. If the USSR hadn't been able to stop Hitler from going for the oil fields, as it did at Stalingrad. Also, the USSR got to the German capital first. So thats like +2 million bonus points. :)

Dragging this thread into the depths I see. ;)

Was the Soviet Union that landed the first people on the Moon too.

*walks off humming the Soviet national anthem......

Dragging this thread into the depths I see. ;)

Was the Soviet Union that landed the first people on the Moon too.

*walks off humming the Soviet national anthem......

Nu uh, cuz no one has ever been to the moon silly! Its a reptoid conspiracy!

Seriously, with out the USSR, the war in Europe would have gone on for many more years.

And Hitler would have won the Second World War.

There would have been no World War II since the Allies would've gotten their asses handed to them by the Ottomans, Hungarians, Germans, and Bulgarians during World War I

Seriously, with out the USSR, the war in Europe would have gone on for many more years.


Well yes I don't think anyone logically looking at it would say otherwise.

There would have been no World War II since the Allies would've gotten their asses handed to them by the Ottomans, Hungarians, Germans, and Bulgarians during World War I

Also laughable. The US entered in the very end of the war. The Allies would have likely won without the US militarily. Now maybe the trade aspect could be debated though.

Well yes I don't think anyone logically looking at it would say otherwise.

And it very well could have exhausted much of the resources of the US, and put a dampening on the war effort, maybe even leading to a defeat.

Also laughable. The US entered in the very end of the war. The Allies would have likely won without the US militarily. Now maybe the trade aspect could be debated though.
Yeah, and provided the morale boost that helped Britain not fall apart before Germany did.

And it very well could have exhausted much of the resources of the US, and put a dampening on the war effort, maybe even leading to a defeat.

I think you underestimate how much the US could have handled. Resource wise the US was just kicking it into overdrive at the end of the war. As you know history the US had the first atomic weapons that would surely have been dropped on Berlin to kill Hitler if the war had gone a different route with the fall of the Soviet Union. I also maintain the Soviets like the US and the UK could have not been defeated. Just to occupy part of the Soviet Union by the German army was a massive undertaking. To try and occupy all three powers was impossible. The Germans and Japanese started a war they could not have won under really any realistic odds. Defeat for the Soviets, Brits or the US was not tolerable by any standard.

Also laughable. The US entered in the very end of the war. The Allies would have likely won without the US militarily. Now maybe the trade aspect could be debated though.

America entered WWI at a crucial time when the Germans were moving men from the eastern front (where Russia had bowed out) to France. The additional troops help France deal with the new influx from Germany in late 1917 and early 1918.

We didn't win the war, but we were a big part in keeping the Allies from losing in late 1917.

Also laughable. The US entered in the very end of the war. The Allies would have likely won without the US militarily. Now maybe the trade aspect could be debated though.

I have studied WWI and can say it wasn't the US in particular that won the war but only brought an end to it sooner. The Germans were on the edge of defeat and only had a sliver of a chance of winning if the US had not entered the war directly.

I think you underestimate how much the US could have handled. Resource wise the US was just kicking it into overdrive at the end of the war. As you know history the US had the first atomic weapons that would surely have been dropped on Berlin to kill Hitler if the war had gone a different route with the fall of the Soviet Union. I also maintain the Soviets like the US and the UK could have not been defeated. Just to occupy part of the Soviet Union by the German army was a massive undertaking. To try and occupy all three powers was impossible. The Germans and Japanese started a war they could not have won under really any realistic odds. Defeat for the Soviets, Brits or the US was not tolerable by any standard.

Most likely, the individual states (or the US under the Articles of Confederation) would not have expanded into the Pacific in Hawaii or the Philippines. Japan would have had no reason to attack at Pearl Harbor (which we wouldn't have owned anyway). The states would not have entered the war in the Pacific.

For Europe, maybe Hitler would not have been able to control Russia after the war, but he still would have probably won. The Russian army did the lion's share of the actual fighting during the war, but they did a lot of it on the back of American industry. Even Stalin acknowledged it. Ditto for England. And most likely, England would not have been occupied. There would have been no reason for it.

Most likely, the individual states (or the US under the Articles of Confederation) would not have expanded into the Pacific in Hawaii or the Philippines. Japan would have had no reason to attack at Pearl Harbor (which we wouldn't have owned anyway). The states would not have entered the war in the Pacific.
.


Zilam was taking the discussion on a different path and I was addressing specifically what he was discussing. With that I think a world war would have came much sooner then 1914 or 1939. Maybe sometime in the 19th century.

Zilam was taking the discussion on a different path and I was addressing specifically what he was discussing. With that I think a world war would have came much sooner then 1914 or 1939. Maybe sometime in the 19th century.

Would there have been the capability for it? The Imperialist system wasn't finalized until the end of the 19th century (and beginning of 20th in a few places). A large-scale European war, maybe. A world war, no.

Then again, there were wars in Europe at the time anyway, and they didn't expand into world war (Franco-Prussian, Crimean). Why would this have changed with no US? We didn't have much influence there until WWI anyway.

...we'd be Europe, only a little west.
A bunch of small countries unwilling to cooperate long enough to get anything crucial, done.
Except that we wouldnt have Europe's "maturational period" to gain thier experience.
If we had, maybe we'd be doing as well as most of Europe seems to be.
America became too powerful, too quickly, and has been obsessed with money, power, and oil.
Not surprisingly, becuase we were too busy counting our borrowed cash, we elected a real douchebag who involved us in an ugly quagmire of mishandled and misinformed nonsense.

If we had become a "region" of independant countries, this would never have happened.
We'd be too busy hating those damned dirty Texans with thier big hats and spurs.
Or them rotten Michiganders, hogging those big lakes to themselves!

New York would have annxed New Jersey in the early 1900's.
Then promptly given it back.

It would be illegal to be under 50 in Florida.
California would be a strange place with plastic people, obsessed with appearance and material possessions...so, pretty much the same place.

Wyoming would be a myth, like Bigfoot.

Would there have been the capability for it? The Imperialist system wasn't finalized until the end of the 19th century (and beginning of 20th in a few places). A large-scale European war, maybe. A world war, no.

Then again, there were wars in Europe at the time anyway, and they didn't expand into world war (Franco-Prussian, Crimean). Why would this have changed with no US? We didn't have much influence there until WWI anyway.

Considering the influence of the US independence from the start I would say the world would have been a much different place without independence. The French revolution may or may not have happened. The independence movements in South America and Mexico would either not happen or delayed by many years. There is a whole slew of events that would not have taken place or delayed by a long period of time. The overthrow of the Tsars in Russia due to the lack of WWI. I am just naming a couple. The world could have been vastly different. Most likely I think their would be an empire clash between the Brits and maybe the Spanish or some combination including Japan in that mix? The possibilities are really staggering.

Considering the influence of the US independence from the start I would say the world would have been a much different place without independence. The French revolution may or may not have happened. The independence movements in South America and Mexico would either not happen or delayed by many years. There is a whole slew of events that would not have taken place or delayed by a long period of time. The overthrow of the Tsars in Russia due to the lack of WWI. I am just naming a couple. The world could have been vastly different. Most likely I think their would be an empire clash between the Brits and maybe the Spanish or some combination including Japan in that mix? The possibilities are really staggering.

I think it was stated at the outset that we're assuming independence.

I think it was stated at the outset that we're assuming independence.

I understand the premise of the OP. Independence for any nation in North America would not have happened in 1776 thus influencing the events from then on.

I understand the premise of the OP. Independence for any nation in North America would not have happened in 1776 thus influencing the events from then on.

The way that I'm thinking here is yes to the American Revolution, no to the Constitution. Either we kept operating under the Articles of Confederation (not much of a union there), or they broke down and we went our separate ways.

The way that I'm thinking here is yes to the American Revolution, no to the Constitution. Either we kept operating under the Articles of Confederation (not much of a union there), or they broke down and we went our separate ways.

Well even under that scenario as you speak of the "United States" as history knows it would not have existed thus throwing the world a loop and changing all sorts of events that would have changed the world drastically. The US even in it's infancy was a huge factor in the world even if it was not a political or military power until later. The general idea that a colony established a republic that was "free" from the reigns of the mighty British Empire spurred many thoughts of the same in many colonies and nations. Like it or not the establishment of the United States will go down in human history with other great accomplishments such as the Greeks and the Romans.

Well even under that scenario as you speak of the "United States" as history knows it would not have existed thus throwing the world a loop and changing all sorts of events that would have changed the world drastically. The US even in it's infancy was a huge factor in the world even if it was not a political or military power until later. The general idea that a colony established a republic that was "free" from the reigns of the mighty British Empire spurred many thoughts of the same in many colonies and nations. Like it or not the establishment of the United States will go down in human history with other great accomplishments such as the Greeks and the Romans.

If independence in the US (for lack of a better term) was what spurred the revolutions in Latin America, unification under the Constitution shouldn't have mattered. They still would have happened.

If independence in the US (for lack of a better term) was what spurred the revolutions in Latin America, unification under the Constitution shouldn't have mattered. They still would have happened.

The Constitution later defined the US independence after it was written. Just look at how it was copied in many different forms around the world. Basically independence and the US Constitution go hand in hand. If the Constitution was never written or ratified then again the US would not have been the US we know in history. The independent states in America could have had the same style of governments as Europe. Parroted the same behaviors thus not making them the beacon of liberty that they became.

The Constitution later defined the US independence after it was written. Just look at how it was copied in many different forms around the world. Basically independence and the US Constitution go hand in hand. If the Constitution was never written or ratified then again the US would not have been the US we know in history. The independent states in America could have had the same style of governments as Europe. Parroted the same behaviors thus not making them the beacon of liberty that they became.

So independence w/Constitution inspires further revolution, but w/o it doesn't? Sounds unlikely to me. The state governments were already set up, and many included most of the stuff that was later included in the Constitution anyway.

And if we're talking liberty here, they still had the Brits to look at. The system still had a long way to go, but the ideas were there. After all, that's where we got them.

Concerning World War I, I think that the peace that Charles I of Austria was attempting to establish would have succeeded, seeing as how there was no threat of US intervention to back up the Triple Entente's position, which would have allowed for the Hohenzollerns, Habsburgs and Romanovs to stay in power and thus have prevented the rise of the tyrannical regimes that took their place.

So independence w/Constitution inspires further revolution, but w/o it doesn't? Sounds unlikely to me. The state governments were already set up, and many included most of the stuff that was later included in the Constitution anyway.

And if we're talking liberty here, they still had the Brits to look at. The system still had a long way to go, but the ideas were there. After all, that's where we got them.

Setting up a nation based on life liberty and pursuit of happiness, guaranteed freedoms with the Constitution and representative government in control of it's own destiny was the influence of many revolutions. Even if the Brits had the foundations of freedom the facts are that it was still ruled directly by a monarchy as was the most of the world.

The states without the constitution to cement them probably would have evolved into a variety of government types. I want to further add that the size of the US was a factor in how it was viewed. A small state with the same government and a Constitutional clone would not have garnered as much inspiration and or attention.

The states without the constitution to cement them probably would have evolved into a variety of government types. I want to further add that the size of the US was a factor in how it was viewed. A small state with the same government and a Constitutional clone would not have garnered as much inspiration and or attention.

The state constitutions were all written before the end of the revolution (many since revised).

And I doubt that the size mattered that much. Existence most likely had more influence than size.

The state constitutions were all written before the end of the revolution (many since revised).

And I doubt that the size mattered that much. Existence most likely had more influence than size.


The state constitutions could have been scrapped or changed to something else all together if it wasn't for the Federal Constitution umbrella. Think about the 13 colonies as a family. A single person for example doesn't have to think of anyone else but themselves. However when you become part of a family unit the other people have to be taken into account when deciding on the direction the family is moving. This is how it worked out with a single Federal Constitution. One state couldn't all of a sudden decide to become a monarchy. They had individual Constitutions but they couldn't deviate that far. The Federal Constitution trumps the states. This is why I believe the Federal Constitution is extremely important in keeping the United States together especially in the infancy of the nation.

On your second point. I think size matters on the national level but I can agree to disagree on this point.

The state constitutions could have been scrapped or changed to something else all together if it wasn't for the Federal Constitution umbrella. Think about the 13 colonies as a family. A single person for example doesn't have to think of anyone else but themselves. However when you become part of a family unit the other people have to be taken into account when deciding on the direction the family is moving. This is how it worked out with a single Federal Constitution. One state couldn't all of a sudden decide to become a monarchy. They had individual Constitutions but they couldn't deviate that far. The Federal Constitution trumps the states. This is why I believe the Federal Constitution is extremely important in keeping the United States together especially in the infancy of the nation.

It didn't matter much until the Civil War (when the Federal Government settled that question) and the 14th Amendment.

It didn't matter much until the Civil War (when the Federal Government settled that question) and the 14th Amendment.

So you think the states could have violated the Federal Constitution unrestrained in the early days? Deleware could set up a monarchy maybe?

So you think the states could have violated the Federal Constitution unrestrained in the early days? Deleware could set up a monarchy maybe?

They didn't do that, but they did violate the Bill of Rights.

Massachusetts was the last state to abolish its official religion, and it didn't do that until about 1820 (need to check exact date).

Also, there was nothing in the US Constitution which said that a state could not set up a monarchy. That was in the Northwest Ordinance, and it only applied to the new states.

Please. USSR won WW2, America just gave an extra punch to make sure Hitler stayed down. If the USSR hadn't been able to stop Hitler from going for the oil fields, as it did at Stalingrad. Also, the USSR got to the German capital first. So thats like +2 million bonus points. :)

i don't know if anyone answered this, but the u.s.s.r. went to berlin, while the western powers went to the indurstral fields south of berlin, they decided that dismantling germanys last factories was more important than taking a bombed out city. im not syaing the ussr wasn't help or that taking berlin was a stupid choice, im just saying that they both had good reasons to go seprate ways.

Also, there was nothing in the US Constitution which said that a state could not set up a monarchy. That was in the Northwest Ordinance, and it only applied to the new states.

To a point there was/is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_Republican_government

To a point there was/is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_Republican_government

Ah, my mistake.

Oh my

And Hitler would have won the Second World War.

You could argue that Hitler would never even have risen to power in Germany. Without the prospect of an injection of Americans into the western theatre in WW1 Germany may never have attempted the 1918 Spring Offensive. WW1 may eventually have been ended by a truce, and a fair peace as neither side was beaten.

As a result, one of the primary driving forces behind the development of Nazism would be removed.

Just to occupy part of the Soviet Union by the German army was a massive undertaking. To try and occupy all three powers was impossible. The Germans and Japanese started a war they could not have won under really any realistic odds. Defeat for the Soviets, Brits or the US was not tolerable by any standard.

True i agree, unless they capitlised on divisions in the allies and lowered their standard for ubermen maybe they could have won in the ussr, with ukrainian and polish puppet states oh and cossacks