What if Britain had WON the American Revolution? | American Reacts | (Part 1)
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 05. 2024
- Submit a video suggestion here: docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FA...
As an American I am very glad to be where I am today, but what if that were not the case? Today I am very interested in learning about what like would be like if Great Britain had won the revolutionary war against America. If you enjoyed the video feel free to leave a comment, like, or subscribe for more!
Slavery was NOT abolished in the same year! It was abolished in the British colonies in 1833, while in the US it was abolished in 1865. In fact the buying and selling of slaves in British colonies was made illegal in 1807, but the owning of slaves was abolished in 1833. Slavery was not practised *within* England since the Norman Conquest of 1066.
The cry wasn't "the British are coming" it was "the regulars are coming" because they still considered themselves British. Slavery was abolished in Britain in the 1060s, and in the 1700s any slave brought here from the new world who ran away was automatically a free man. Britain outlawed the Transatlantic slave trade in 1807, and had a detachment of the Royal Navy, called the West Africa Squadron trying to blockade the whole of Africa. They started with only two ships because they were stretched pretty thin, but by the end of the Napoleonic war and the 1812 war they had 25 ships on station. They blockaded Brazil till they gave up the trade, they bullied, cajoled and bribed the US, France Spain and Portugal to give up, and the US finally outlawed it after the civil war, more than 50 years after Britain. When they had stamped out the Transatlantic trade, they turned their attention to the Arab slave trade in East Africa and the Indian Ocean.
"the regulars are OUT" regular soldiers barely went out of the garrisons unless trouble was brewing.
@@robertsmith4681 They NEVER went out if tea was brewing either - Everything Stops For Tea.
You wouldn't be the US, you would have been large Canada. Also slavery in Wales and England ended in the 11th century: any foreign slave that set foot in either country was immediately set free (see youtube videos on English slavery)
Never seen an American get British history right. Slavery was never legal inside the UK. They are talking about when Britain and the US made the international trading in slaves illegal in 1807. Abolishing the actual ownership, and trading of slaves inside countries is a whole different subject.
Trade in the colonoes wasnt ilegal the law stated the ban of slaves on english soil it never aplied to the colonies
Wrong.
It has been unlawful to trade or hold slaves in England since around 1076 when William the Conqueror made it law. This obviously predates the existence of the unions of Britain and the United Kingdom and so therefore, obviously it has never been legal to hold slaves or trade in slaves within England's borders, Britain's borders or UK borders since 1076.
1807 was when the abolishment of slavery within the British empire was established though it was not formally abolished until 1833.
Hence the two pound coin which upon the rear face has a chain and the date 1833. This signifies the formal abolishment of slavery within all British controlled territories.
@@stuartfitch7093 Everything you said is right and I agree. However, the fifty pence coin has date 1807. I know because I've got one.
KorkytheKat UK
Sorry. Two pond coin.
KorkytheKat UK
Even two pound coin. Got there in the end.
KorkytheKat UK
When the UK fully abolished slavery, It was taken pretty seriously. Once it was banned in our territories, we then used our Navy to stop it elsewhere. See: The context of the 48 minute war for an example...
the anti-slavery patrols, the West and East Africa Squadrons and interdicting Brazilian slave ships, along with blockading West African slave ports
10:40 Britain abolished slavery in 1807 nearly sixty years before America.
It was illegal on British territory itself since before the Americas were discovered. The colonies doing it was kind of a loophole and the trade did not go thru Britain proper.
Also having a slave in Britain had been illegal since at least 1066, when William the Conqueror abolished slavery, it has been illegal in Britain for almost 1000 years.,
@@zo7034 Close but 10 years later, nitpicking but it's true
Britain abolished slavery in it's TERRITORIES in 1807.
It has never been lawful to hold someone in slavery within the borders of the United Kingdom.
William the Conqueror made it unlawful within England (which predates the unions of Britain and the UK) for any person to be held in slavery shortly after he invaded England in 1066.
No British person living in any part of Britain itself has ever been lawfully allowed to keep a slave.
Because work slave was substitute by steammachine and the last have more efficience and machine don't make rebellion
You would have free education, free healthcare and most importantly proper chocolate.
Decent TV commercials too.
Along with a food standards agency that works, cars that are not insanely huge, a viable public transport system and no prescription drug adds.
And pubs
This guy is so wrong on the slavery laws it's unreal. There are videos about how Britain ended slavery FOR THE WORLD. we finished paying the bill in 2015 so every taxpayer who has paid tax before then paid for the abolition of slavery
The British were also going to side with the confederate states during the civil war to protect their cotton supply. They decided not to when Abe Lincoln made the war about the abolishment of slavery as they would not fight a war against the abolishment of slavery, the civil war weren't about slavery to begin with, it was about not letting the confederate states go independent, kind of like a brexit situation if ypu will.
@@ummbop1296 or did Abe make it about slavery to discourage Britain from siding with the Confederacy?
I guess we'll never know which way the emphasis lies but it was a wise strategic move by Abe if that formed part of his decision making process.
@@ummbop1296I'm related to an American born man who was a founder member of the Republican Party in the 1850s and was a Union soldier in the American Civil War. One of the Republican Party's policies was to disallow the Confederate States from joining the Union, so however you look at it, it had something to do with slavery and the northern States, which used to belong to Great Britain, had banned slavery after the Somerset vs. Stewart legal case in England's law courts in 1772 which set a precedence.
in exactly the same way that everyone who pays their taxes in the UK is dealing with the criminal population...
@Rachel_M_ you do know that Britain paid it's slave owners not reparations to people who were enslaved? Just stop, it's pathetic how you want to take credit for stopping slavery but discount the 100s of years Britain benefited from it.
you misunderstood: In 1807, Britain ended the international slave TRADE. In other words: the British ended slavery, while America did not! While the U.S. could no longer receive a slave population from Africa at that point (largely because they did not have the infrastructure to import slaves themselves and the British controlled much of Africa at the time), and because the South so heavily depended on this system of labor, it continued an internal slave trade and more attention was spent on having their already existing slave population “breed“ and multiply within America!… This is why laws that made the children of slave women (instead of slave men) follow the status of the mother (thus enabling slave children to remain slaves even if their fathers were their owners of free blacks or whites…) became quite important and why the Fugitive Slave law of 1850 became such an important issue in the abolitionist/proslavery movement.
From an Australian point of view, if there had been no American revolution, Great Britain could have kept sending its convicts to its American colonies. There would be no reason to send convicts to Australia. Great Britain might have establised a military outpost in Australia as a strategic move against French expansion into the Pacific, but probably wouldn't have gone to the trouble of carting prisoners half way around the world. Without the need to find a dumping ground for prisoners, Britain might have taken its time in colonising Australia. Since the French explorer La Perouse arrived in Botany Bay only a day after the First Fleet, it could be conjectured that if the British had not turned up when they did, Australia could have been a French colony, not a British colony. Things would have been very different.
Wow, I hadn't thought of that. Good point! And what about NZ, as well?
So much wrong with this... for a start, it's been clearly established that Paul Revere crying "the British are coming" is an erroneous legend/myth. And North America would not have "stayed part of Great Britain", which is an island -- or the United Kingdom, for that matter. It would have remained a part of the British Empire. Pity he never reads comments, isn't it?
Agreed he doesn't read any comments, so just think of this as folks having a chat without him.
America wasn't America until the British left
Canada has had independence from the British parliament since 1867 when they got their own parliament who they could vote for.
When British, British-Canadian and American women were involved in woman’s suffrage British New Zealand’s woman had already been able to vote since 1893.
I have many American friends and I go to USA very often and today many STILL think that the 4th July is a sad day for me - it never has been and never will be because we have 100 countries who have their own 4th July (!)
And if the revolutionary war had never happened the USA would not have been as strong or rich enough to help us Brits out in both the world wars.
USA has always been looked to as the future until recently - now it feel like looking into the past.
If Britain can have free schools and private schools we can and do also have free healthcare for ALL and private health care for those who wish to jump the line.
Our crappy cheap health system keeps Brits healthier for longer than our American cousins with their bankrupt health care - it’s morally bankrupt and Americans are so brainwashed they continue to blindly follow the opposite of robunbhood - your rich steals from the poor and keeps it that way and everyone just accepts it ?!
CEAZY
And today if I were American I’d make a point of NEVER celebrating July 4th - not because it offends Brits - it never has - I’d make a POINT of only celebrating Juneteenth because you’re not free until ALL of you are free and that includes the slaves.
Canada has had independence from the UK Parliament since 1982. Repatriation of the constitution (BNA Act could now be amended by Canada, not via the UK Parliament, with the addition of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms).... Canada did not (despite what we celebrate on July 1) become independent of the UK in 1867. With the exception of the constitutional amending process (changed when the British North America Act of the UK Parliament became the Constitution Act, 1867 of the Parliament of Canada), we, along with the other self-governing Dominions became de facto independent with the passing of the Statute of Westminster in 1931 (ending the ability of the UK Parliament to legislate on behalf of the Dominions). Notwithstanding this, Canada's actual full independence from the UK Parliament did not occur until 1982.
@@ryanpotter3812 It wasn't the British Parliement but the House of Lords that still had the right to revise some acts of the federal Canadian Parliament until 1982. How many times and in which cases did this actually happen between 1867 and 1982?
The British constitution is a wonderful thing because it's mostly made up of common sense rather than words on parchment that can be changed at a stupid politician's whim.
@@szabados1980 the Lords form part of Parliament along with the HoC - the BNA Act was an Act of the Parliament of the UK - All acts require passage by the HoC and the Lords as well as Royal Assent. If you're interested, the Act was passed/amended by the UK Parliament in 1867, 1871, 1886, 1907, 1915, 1916, 1930, 1940, 1943, 1946, and 1949. The 1949 changes allowed Canada limited powers to amend our own constitution except in matters related to the division of powers between the federal/provincial governments and the monarchy. Canada only received those powers after patriation of the constitution in 1982.
@@ryanpotter3812 The amendment of acts of the federal Parliament of Canada was the right of the House of Lords. The Commons had nothing to do with it.
@@szabados1980 - if you check Hansard from the Commons between 1867 and 2005 you would see you are mistaken.
The American Revolution was in reality the first American Civil War as it was Americans who supported British rule against Americans who opposed British rule.
This particular scenario doesn't seem unlikely at all especially as becoming independent from Britain wasn't as popular an idea as the myth implies. I have heard it estimated that perhaps a third of the population were in favour of independence, a third wanted to remain British and a third just wanted to be left alone to get on with their lives! There are many small changes which could have produced victory for the British and if that had been the case, eventually America would have become independent in a similar manner to Canada, Australia etc, so the USA would still exist today but likely with a parliamentary system of government. The system of law would remain pretty much as it is today apart from rights granted by the constitution and the Supreme Court, after all, the one thing the Americans didn't change was English Common Law.
Perfectly correct
Translation: If the French hadn't saved your asses 😁
Along with Spain and Dutch lol
The warning wasn't "The British are coming" it was actually "The regulars are coming out". Reason being because the colonists who lived in the American colonies were British themselves, so it wouldn't have made sense for them to refer to the soldiers as "British". It would be like if Texas rebelled against the US and cried "The Americans are coming"
Actually, George III was quite sympathetic to the grievences of the American colonists and recommended reducing taxes, etc., but his bouts of illness lessened his influence, and his Government Ministers insisted on taking a harder line.
But imagine if King George had said ‘Yes, they are right, they should have representation before taxation’. And then he might have thought: ‘well, we already have Canada, so now we should be able to expand around the rest of America, chase the Spanish and French out and - the whole of North America will be part of the British Empire!’ What a silly King he was!
Thank God Modern America doesn't have any representation in our Parliament. It's enough of a s- show as it is.
British Parliament thought American was too expensive due to the amount of military needed and requested. So a taxation was seen as a way of paying for that.
@@donnacannon4475 Every colonial power realized Americas were worthless since the North West passage was not going to be a thing, once that was established it was a mattter of finding out who would go bankrupt first.
The Americans have very strange ideas about George III. This was a hundred years after the Glorious Revolution established the supremacy of parliament, which was actually the problem.
Also Australia followed a similar pattern to Canada with Home Rule (1901) followed by their own control of foreign affairs (1942) and finally the Australia Acts gave the Aussie’s full control of their constitution (1986)! New Zealand experienced their independence with home rule in 1907, followed by their own control of foreign affairs in 1947 and final clean up of the Kiwi’s constitution in 1986!
Both Australia & New Zealand are independent realms autonomous of the United Kingdom and where Charles III Reigns individually as King of Australia and King of New Zealand, legally separate from his role as King of the United Kingdom!
We were having conflicts here there and everyhere, luckily for America we were busy elsewhere. 😊
A Briitish accent and a kettle !!!!!
And some decent food and great healthcare and, they would be STILL driving on the left hand side of the road !!
Half right.. we do have kettles :) 🇨🇦
@@mw-wl2hm Some of our accents have a lot to be desired particularly amongst our teenagers !!
if they had won you would all be speaking English right now
🤣
Best comment yet :)
I came on the chat looking for posts like yours 😂
🤣🤣
Fantastic comment. Love it..😅😅
The legal case “Somerset 1772” where the British freed an American slave that was visiting London with his slave master. Fear that the British would take away the slaves was a big part of getting the Americans to rebel.
Yep got help from french , Holland and spain and we was in a war with france we had to hold our own back in England not across the pond !!
My thoughts are that if we won the American revolution, is that in the present, the Americans would be better of. Their situation probably wouldn't be that much different from Australia. Think they would have had rough at first though.
Edit: made a few typos so correcting them.
They wouldn’t simply be….. 🤷🏻♀️
One thing's for sure: if the American Revolution had failed, the indigenous peoples would have got a FAR better deal! There's a reason why Sitting Bull led his people across the border into Canada (British territory).
As a Brit. We feel that you Won. And left you too ruin you're own existence. And we were right 😂
🤣
It would have happened had the us not had help from the French and Spanish!!
Whilst I agree, warfare at the time made it impossible for one side to beat another without a ganging up. Most of the famous British victories were an alliance of nations
@stuartjohnellis I agree with that!! But it's typical Americans when they say they beat the us the British! But never point out that would not have happened without the Spanish or French!
and there would have been no bankrupt France...
The next time you use the phrase 'cheese eating surrender monkeys', remember who is mainly responsible for you gaining your independence:
@@user-xq8hn1xl7v There would have been no Louisiana Purchase, possibly no French Revolution...
There's a video about what if Britain joined the United States as the 51st state , can't remember what it's called tho
Tyler: "I would probably have a British accent..."
Yes, Tyler... Is that why Canadians have a British accent? SMH I guess we can add "accents" to the list of things Tyler doesn't understand.
Do you need a cuddle ?
bahaha.. Yes, a British accent just like Canada, N.Z. and Australia have.
Look at Canada that's basically how the states would be today the American civil war would never have been your head of state would have been the British monarchy your currency would have the been sterling and probably you'd be driving on the left😂😂😂
Civil war would have occured regardless in my opinion, we basically had our own "civil war" 30 years before them in 1837-38 ... The Quebecois still "celebrate" those "patriots" much like modern day Southerners "celebrate" the failed confederacy.
Canada doesn't drive on the left or use sterling but perhaps they'd know a little more about the rest of the world.. or realize there IS a rest of the world.
You have more accounts?? I stumbled upon this when I was watching your other account “Tyler Walker”??
The whole reason for the increase in taxes was to pay for the war against the French which Washington personally started!
I love alternative histories.
Ex-Brits with help from French and others vs Brits.
If this time line had happened, Britain would probably rule the world, we would have won both world wars, and you know what we are like about giving land back, give some, keep some for ever, it's a british thing.
the British empire would probably rule half if not more of the wolrd.
AS A LOYAL CANADIAN I FIND THIS FASCINATING SO FAR. TOO BAD THE WRONG SIDE WON THE REVOLUTION!
Wow that's a cool looking interwined flag!
Guess the American English didn't like to pay tax on tea, so the Dutch delivered it tax free :
10:54 Britain was near bankruptcy (or it even was) by opposing to abolish the slave trade what was why they Raised the Taxes on the colonies in the first place.
Quite a few errors. The joke about the metric system is misleading, as the UK only switched to metric within the last few decades (I learnt Imperial measures at school in the '60s and '70s). Slavery in England was effectively banned by the Normans shortly after 1066, and there were never any African slaves within the UK itself, as it had an indigenous white "working class" (most black British citizens are recent immigrants, starting in the 1960s). The 1807 act banned the slave trade (not slavery) throughout the Empire. Slavery itself was abolished in all British territories and colonies in 1834.
Hey Tyler my names Matt I’m loving your content and know you are interested in Great Britain so I thought I’d recommend one of my favorite British CZcamsrs to you, the channel is Cambrian chronicles he is a historian specializing in wales and England all of his videos are very interesting but I would recommend starting out with the mystery kingdom that sank into the sea, or the king that didn’t exist
Was actually George III who bought at the time was called Buckingham House, who he bought for Queen Consort Charlotte as a way of them quite essentially escaping court life, was later Victoria who moved the HQ of the Monarch to there when it was renamed Buckingham Palace (though officially at least its still St James's as a lot of the Monarchy's things are done there still like is where all the honours are arranged from).
Buckingham House was owned by the Duke of Buckingham who had to sell it or face bankruptcy and debtors prison. It was a semi rural house surrounded by parkland and Royal Forest (hunting land). Sold at a low price, enough to clear the most important debt, tax, practically a forced sale to the Crown Estate. St. James Palace is the official residence of the Monarch.
WHAT IF THE DUTCH NOT HAD LEFT NEW AMSTERDAM ,AND HAD DEFEATED THE ENLISH.
According to Al Murray, Britain did win anyway 🤔
Indeed. They were British until the war was over. Technically we beat ourselves...
@@Rachel_M_ooer missus
@@Rachel_M_yes in fact it was a civil war.
@@johnnyuk3365 precisely.
@@pem... Nudge nudge, wink wink 😉
There was big pressure to outlaw slavery for centuries, and it was largely already gone from Britain long before 1800. 1807 was the year that international slave trading was made illegal by the UK and US, and the British Navy was heavily involved in trying to destroy the north Atlantic slave trade. 15:00 - my home nation of New Zealand is very much like that. Responsible government since the 1840s, no longer a colony by 1907, now a fully independent nation but still with close ties to the UK.
Alot of stuff about slavery here is inaccurate or cherry picking of dates and technicalities. Theses a trong argument there would have been a net benifit to the world if the US would have develops like Canada, austrailia etc
If you're here to learn stop breaking videos in two parts.
If you voted to change your constitution I am sure that King Charles111 would accept you all as loyal subjects. 😁😁😁😁
I do not think that Charles 3rd even knows where America is !!
@@brianbrotherston5940 He is as thick as a brick and is best mates with Soros.
He probably still thinks Harry is his son 🤔
PART 2!!
you should watch, Americas crusaide against slavery, OH wait, it's Britains crusaide, sry bout that.
His whiney voice does my head in 😵💫
'I'm just an ordinary American'.......😢
Don't watch him then.
@@richardjones4466 Thanks for the advice 😉
@@richardjones4466 it's because Tyler won't tell them he loves them, bless...
So slavery was outlawed in england in 1807 but the territory it owned 1837 all but India
Funny england been warring with france pretty much since 1066 battle of Hastings
Slight technical point. The Union Jack, would be where the stars are on the American flag. Check New Zealand and Australias flag.
Slight technical point - the Union Jack is flown on maritime vessels. The Union Flag is flown everywhere else. Same flag, different names.
Isn’t it the American War of Independence and the American Civil War? The British had nothing to do with the latter.
Apart from supplying blockade running steamers.
They didn't call him mad king,
Just think you could have had free health care.
Free healthcare? British healthcare is 'free' if you've never worked a day in your life.
Everyone with a job pays National Insurance - whether they like it or not - it's taken out of your wages. THIS pays for the NHS.
To be fair to Tyler, as a Brit myself I probably know only a TINY amount more about American history than he knows about British history😁
Like the vast majority on here..
Only a tiny? You overestimate him.
@@mw-wl2hm Hi, if you ready my comment I was saying about me as a Brit probably only knowing a TINY amount more of US history than Tyler knows about U.K. history.
@@Temeraire101 Anything more than nothing is something.
They would likely have gotten in a fight with the French and the Spanish, leading to a seven years war 2.0 and the result would have been lagely the same, colonial powers essentially vacating and remaining in name only, with national borders being drawn roughly the same as they are today .
your bloodline will always be british. love your channel, Rule Britannia ❤
Not necessarily..many US bloodlines from Germans, Dutch, Italian,, Africa, etc
I think we would have been better off had we remained under the crown. George III could have been raised with. He had his hands full fighting France.
Need to watch "first time hearing how Britain ended slavery" for an insight and how slavery was ended in the world
I’m a real admirer of your videos! Canada evolved (without a messy war) into its own independent, autonomous realm. Dominion Status (Home Rule), 1867 … then Our Own Foreign Rule, 1931 … then full Constitutional Patriation as a Fully Independent Realm, 1982! In fact we also proclaimed our own Canadian Royal Coat of Arms in 1921; our own Canadian Royal Standard in 1962, our own Canadian National Flag in 1965, our own distinct Canadian Royal Crown in 2023 & our own Royal Canadian Cypher in 2024! The Canadian Monarchy is completely and legally autonomous from the British Monarchy! Even the King … Charles III of the United Kingdom is actually legally independent from Charles III of Canada!!
What that means is that Charles III of the UK only takes his advice from his UK PM & UK Ministers of the Crown while Charles III of Canada only takes advice from his Canadian PM & Canadian Ministers of the Canadian Crown!
Also Australia followed a similar pattern with Home Rule (1901) followed by their own control of foreign affairs (1942) and finally the Australia Acts gave the Aussie’s full control of their constitution (1986)! New Zealand experienced their independence with home rule in 1907, followed by their own control of foreign affairs in 1947 and final clean up of the Kiwi’s constitution in 1986!
Both Australia & New Zealand are independent realms autonomous of the United Kingdom and where Charles III Reigns individually as King of Australia and King of New Zealand, legally separate from his role as King of the United Kingdom!
A very well-thought out comment however it's wasted on him as he doesn't read comments nor does he retain any info. from the videos he's watched.
How typical that infographics assumes it's only events in the colony's which decide if they won or lost, the truth is it's events in the UK which decided it,
- You could have canadian accent
They would more likely have been hanged for treason rather than pardoned. No need for statues when a severed head can remain on a pike for several decades.
Given where they lived they probably wouldn't have been offered the alternative to execution: being transported to America and forced to stay there for life. Not sure if Australia would have been needed as a penal colony in this timeline, but if it did some may have taken their chances with Australia's wildlife.
No 4th of July, but if Washington considered himself British (and not averse to upsetting the French-Canadians) he wouldn't have banned Guy Fawkes Night.
Instead of making up a US measurement system, America would have adopted Imperial with the rest of the Empire.
US English would've probably been unavoidable, but Received Pronunciation and proper Oxford/Cambridge dictionaries might have eventually killed off the language and its dialects.
Canada (assuming the British North America Act included the US states) would have probably implemented the Westminster system the (current timeline) Canadian way - a monarch (represented by a Governor General) and a Canadian House of Commons (no US House of Representatives), where every MP is elected from a constituency/riding, and an unelected (appointed) Canadian Senate. The District of Columbia probably wouldn't exist because it isn't exactly central... perhaps Canada would have gone with 3 capital cities like South Africa chose to - somewhere in North Dakota (centre of Canada) for the Canadian Parliament, Ottawa (or somewhere else north of the 49th parallel) for the Supreme Court, and New York for the bulk of the civil service.
Infographics. Possibly the worst source of knowledge. Cartoon level. 🥴
Try to find a film called CSA (Confederate States of America) which assumes that the North lost he Civil War. It takes the form of a 'documentary' made by the BBC showing how modern America deals with still having slavery and the history that led to the situation, and includes 'adverts' for slave-related products. It's quite disturbing :-(
Canada became Canada because they didn't want to fight for Independence so they became separate, They came out alright. ;)
We did indeed. 🇨🇦
@@mw-wl2hm 💪💪
Slavery would have ended 30 years sooner it was abolished in the British colonies in 1833, while in the US it was abolished in 1865 that means no civil war that took about 620,000 lives you would have National Health, US really stuffed up in 1776. Peace out.
If this was true the US would be treated the same as Scotland is now.
More like Canada most likely...
@damonx6109 Canada isn't part of the UK, so that wouldn't match up, whereas Scotland is.
put it this way we did not lose
This was a war between (mostly) Brits and Brits.
True and no one ever really says that.
I don't understand why we dont celebrate the 4th of July in Britain😊
USA becoming New England would be the second best thing for the country to happen. But to be a clean and healthy place without hardly any crime it would have to be danish. But I'm afraid the movies wouldn't be that amazing. So no Alien, Terminator, Predator, Superman, Blade Runner and all the other amazing movies. So maybe not a good idea.
Slavery was abolished in Britain in the 12th Century lol.
Couple of things ...
1) rather than "the South" fighting a war against the greatest empire and it's Northern administrators, is it not more likely they would have looked to move to parts of the Americas not under colonial control, the way the Boers did in what is now South Africa and set up independent Republics? After the south lost in our version of time some did move to South America. This Free State of North America would probably like South Africa not have continued with the slave trade ( large indigenous populations are too difficult to subjugate like that and no new supply lines from Arabian markets would have been allowed as Britannia ruled the waves. The new state would have very politically conservative values and had Apartheid style laws too. Meanwhile the amount of refugees from Germany, Italy, Huguenots and Easter European Jewish population s fleeing wars and persecution on continental Europe and in Ireland would have changed the composition of populations in North America. Without the USA pushing to open up markets in Japan, that country would be less developed and less influenced by the outside world. Australia would still have become part of the Empire but with fewer immigrants. Without all the Europeans leaving mainland Europe the greater population would have seen more pressure on resources so even more war. Germany with innovation s like the motor car and zeppelins would be a trading partner and a government to be watched. Had the cousins ruling England, Germany and Russian around 1910 alligned, they may have retaken France under royal control, captured Spain including Ibiza for the British youth and removed the Ottoman Emire. Portugal would have aligned itself with this English alliance and gained Spanish colonies in return. China and India would still have faught for independence and win. Africa would have become the region where excess to requirement people from continental Europe would have been encouraged to move to.
(i) Would there have been a French Revolution without them financing the American Revolutionary War? (ii) Without all the Europeans leaving mainland Europe? Why would that have been affected? (iii) Without a French Revolution there might not have been a war with Prussia, and no unification of Germany... Far too many possibilities/dependencies for anyone to state what could have happened...
@@LoremIpsum1970 well for me your last part raises a fundamental question. Is it a butterfly effect where one change in the past triggers a cascade of decision tree branches faning out in all directions or if you disrupt one thing in the past will history auto-correct to some similar preordained path that is inevitable. History repeats itself because, well human nature. My assumption of continental Europeans movements is that I think they had a better appetite to rusk moving to a new system of government rather than being in one kingdom and going to another or colony of another. In our time also the 13 states were eager to push west at a rate that I believe is faster than what a British controlled Eastern seaboard administration would have done, thus less eager to welcome immigrants. We will never know, but I just imagine extrapolating the Canada/Australia/NZ and South Africa of our time while canceling out the differences the USA has and the global effects of all of this.
This video is so incorrect regarding slavery. Unbelievably bad.
The British sailed into Chesapeake Bay down the Patuxent River and set fire to the white house and you've been working for us ever since / they don't tell you that at school America do they
If the British had won...there would be no tRump 🤣
Not quite true. In the UK it only became illegal to own a slave as recently as 2010. No that is not a typo.
That's because there was never a legal basis for it and it could only be made legal by Statute. There was, of course, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 under which it is specifically criminal offense.
@@thostaylor agreed
Well you would not be in the mess your in now
America would not revolt because of 1 man, calhoun or no, the very problem would be aleviated over time, no new slaves imported, then a year or 2 down the line, slaves children are American, they must be set free, then eventualy freeing slaves in bondage, britain would have managed this, or forced it down your throght with cannons.
1179th
Oh my dear...
First of all, nobody would call that affray a revolution. It probably wouldn't even make it to the history books, like it doesn't in many places of the world, but even if it did, it would be in small print.
What do you think happened to others who conspired to commit treason? Off with their heads!
No, nobody called them Americans or American colonists. They were British and British colonists.
Wrong again, the American colonies never were part of Great Britain. Just like any other colony. The hint is in the name, they were colonies. Had they been part of Great Britain, there would have been Members of Parliament from those territories which clearly there weren't.
That "big deal of independence" was "self-governing colony". Many white British colonies were granted a self governing status in the 19th century. Because it would have been impossible to run such a vast empire from London. And because the British thought grown-arse men should govern themselves.
The white colonies, most of them self-governing colonies, were given independence in the 19th and 20th centuries. And they didn't even have to stage an insurrection, the British were more than happy to get rid of those troublesome territories. They got their own state and government (I know the United Statesians can't get their heads around these and think they're the same. They aren't.) under the Crown. Which means the British monarch continues to be their head of state as King of Canada, King of Australia, etc. These countries used to be called dominions initially, nowadays they're referred to as Commonwealth realms.
The colonies were run by British governors and governor generals. What a preposterous proposition to imagine a colonial nobody to be appointed the King's personal representative! A local could have become premier or prime minister at most. But those prime ministers didn't hold absolute power like their present-day counterparts.
America wouldent have been treated like other conquered nations, i'm prety sure they would have had a council or something made up of Americans to help govern the colonies, answering to the crowns rep some lord or whatnot, and eventualy gain proper rep, after the wars, things turn to business, trade, its what built the british empire, it's what america would do, and many americans would become rich under britiah monopoly trade routes, no more revolution, rich americans love the king.
im prety sure thats what wopuld happen.
you wouldn't have a british accent..
Ywa not true britain baned slavery in the colonies in the early 1800s american banned it in laye 1800s their even a theory that the proclemation of mancipation was signed because the british would of joined the war to protect trade with the south but britain prioritises ending slavery so making the war about ending slavery kept outsiders out of the war
Yikes! A history video?? I don't think Tyler realizes how ignorant these make him look...
Or that comment you
It's pretty bad when an infographics cartoon is too complicated for you... Maybe Tyler should stick to reacting to videos about biscuits and kettles for another 2 years?
"videos about biscuits and kettles", all with the same content that he can watch over and over and be completely surprised about each time he watches it.....Well, he does call himself a "Little American"......
We could have quite easily have won that war
God forbid. I could never handle your two years run up to an election, it’s bad enough having a two months run up to an election.
Even worse is court cases that never end - if you're rich.
@@bigmeltie1 . Is that the reason so many people in the USA choose to become lawyers, to milk the system of everyone being sued. Especially with the rich clientele. Also I wonder if you would have ended up with a National Health Service, not an insurance based one.
We would have had a parliament government with a parliament general that respents the crown. We would be like canada
So much misinformation........
The slave trade was actually made illegal in England in 1068. You really need to learn about British involvement in the slave trade, it was the British who forced the end of the Atlantic slave trade. There are a number of vids on CZcams explaining this.
Incorrect facts
1102 was when the slave trade was banned in England. William the conqueror first made illegal in 1080 but only as a fine payable to him.
USA didnt even exist 😂
Do you have to react every 10 seconds??
You have more accounts?? I stumbled upon this when I was watching your other account “Tyler Walker”??