The battles of Lexington and Concord.
The opening shots of the American Revolution, pitting a scrappy colonial army against the
might of the British empire.
It was the culmination of years of harsh treatment from the English forces, including the massacre
of peaceful protesters in Boston and the tax hikes that led to the Boston Tea Party.
And the world watched as the ultimate underdogs, led by George Washington, turned back the
forces of Great Britain and created a new country - the United States of America!
But what if it didn’t work out that way?
700 British soldiers had been sent to destroy colonial supplies and cut the rebellion off
before it could start.
Warning was given by Paul Revere and other riders of the British arrival - but in this
timeline, a stray butterfly spooked the horses of the warning team, keeping them from ever
reaching their destination.
The British swept in and captured the arms caches and arrested the ringleaders planning
to fight the British.
Prominent founding fathers like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were interrogated by
the British, likely disavowing all involvement, but one thing was sure.
There would not be an American revolution in this timeline.
Under the hard-nosed approach of King George III, the potential revolution had been quelled
and he would likely take care to make sure it never repeated.
British troops would maintain a strong presence in the colonies, rooting out any sign of rebellion.
George was infamous as the King who had the harshest approach towards the colonies, spurring
increased resistance, but it’s likely that after a close call, he might be advised by
those he trusts to hold off on any new taxes for a while - after all, the colonies were
a valuable resource.
So it’s likely that the status quo would have remained in place for the next few decades
as long as George III remained in power.
And that would be a while!
George III has a reputation as being a bit of a disaster, but he was actually the longest-reigning
King in British history, serving for almost sixty years.
His successor, George IV, was seen as a dilettante who only reigned for ten years.
Selfish and irresponsible, his reign was heavily influenced by his advisors, and as such it’s
likely they just would have advised him to keep things going under his father’s colonial
policies for the term.
After all, there were parties to attend back in London!
But back in the colonies, things have changed a lot.
Many of the founding fathers who defined the march to independence have since passed away,
with Franklin and Washington likely not having anywhere near the influence on history they
did in our timeline.
However, it’s likely an independence-minded movement continues in the colonies - focused
less on fighting for independence than on developing the colonies’ culture.
And they have a lot of room to do it in - while the original United States post-revolution
was only composed of thirteen colonies, the British territories they’re part of now
are much larger - including much of what’s now Canada.
And the crises happening in another country may be as big a factor as what’s happening
in England.
While the American Revolution didn’t happen in this timeline, the odds are another revolution
did - the French Revolution.
The circumstances there were primarily driven by poverty and populist rage against an out-of-touch
monarch, and while it’s possible that the American events helped to influence it, they
also quickly spiraled out of control and the Americans who supported it in our timeline
were rather ineffectual at pushing it in their direction - and some were even imprisoned
for their efforts.
So the odds are Danton and Robespierre still rose, the King and Marie Antoinette still
wound up facing Madame Guillotine, and the Reign of Terror still sent France into chaos
- until it fell, leading to the rise of the Emperor Napoleon.
And that would give Britain the leverage it needed.
France and Britain have long been bitter enemies, and in our timeline both saw their empires
decline significantly in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
Britain saw itself lose its colonies, while France lost much of its territory to Britain
in the Seven Years’ War.
That gave Britain a dominant foothold in North America - including control of the French-speaking
territory of Quebec.
So with France relegated to rump territory in the continent and dealing with political
upheaval, the odds are that Britain would be able to take America’s place in the Louisiana
Purchase in the early 1800s - giving the country near-total dominance of North America with
only Spain to oppose it.
But the dominant country would be able to face a major challenge.
The United States’ history was largely one of expansion for most of its first seventy
years, but a major crisis was brewing - slavery.
The new country chose to keep the oppressive institution to appease the southern states.
Although it did abolish the slave trade in 1807, this just led it to create harsher rules
to keep its enslaved population in perpetual bondage.
It wasn’t until the 1860s - after a brutal civil war - that the United States abolished
slavery, and even then it was over a century before the system of racial oppression in
the south would be addressed.
But in this timeline, things would be very different.
You might think that under a colonial power, progress might be even slower.
After all, Britain helped to bring the institution of slavery to the continent of North America,
along with other colonial powers.
But actually, the slave trade was abolished in Great Britain the same year as it was in
the United States, and pressure continued among abolitionist members of Parliament to
eliminate the institution for good.
The result was that in 1833, Great Britain passed the Slavery Abolition Act, which eliminated
the possession of slaves in the country and all territories controlled by it with the
exception of those managed by the East India Company.
That included the massive North America territories.
So how does this play out across the pond?
The abolition of slavery in the UK went relatively smoothly, because Great Britain was not an
agricultural-driven market.
It was a relatively small island quickly becoming a hub of India.
The United States might not have been independent at this point, but the odds are its territorial
breakdown is still fairly similar.
You have the industrialized northern states, and the more agricultural southern states
- which are making much more heavy use of slaves.
And as word starts to spread that the institution may be coming to an end, the odds are we’ll
see some rebellion.
And instead of a civil war, is it time for the American Revolution 2.0?
Things could have been very different if the United States lost an extended revolution
back in the 1770s, but in this timeline it was crushed with relatively little effort
by the British.
That means that the colonies would have been allowed to develop at their own pace under
the oversight of the Crown, and they likely all have their own Governors and local political
figures.
It’s impossible to know if someone who was a Governor or Senator in the United States
would still be prominent here, but there are some figures who are such major players, who
are so determined to make their voices heard, that it’s almost impossible to imagine they
wouldn’t emerge in any circumstance.
And so enters John C. Calhoun into the fray.
The fiery South Carolina radical rose to prominence in the United States as the only Vice President
to lead a rebellion against his own President - supporting South Carolina in a dispute with
the federal government over tariffs.
He would later emerge as one of the most prominent figures in the lead-up to the civil war, refusing
any concessions to abolitionists and advocating for secession if the institution of slavery
was infringed upon.
He would die ten years before the civil war began, but his fiery speech in Congress is
seen by many as the turning point where conflict was inevitable.
And in this timeline, the crisis over slavery happens several decades early.
Instead of being a dying old war-horse in 1850, Calhoun is a hale fire-breather of 51
in 1833 when the word of the Slavery Abolition Act filters down from Parliament.
The odds are he’s a powerhouse in South Carolina colonial politics - perhaps even
the Governor.
And he proved that he was anything but shy when it came to opposing the government - so
the odds are good that when attempts to persuade the Crown out of passing the bill failed,
he would be ready to defy them and try to create the Confederacy thirty years early.
But this would be a very different conflict.
The map of the country looks a little different in this timeline, with the much larger territory
of Canada joining it.
However, it’s unlikely that Great Britain would have been quite as involved in the southern
border and looking to take territory from Spain, so it’s possible that Texas would
not be part of the United States.
This means the Confederacy is little more than a rump state consisting of the southern
states from Virginia to Florida, against one of the biggest empires the world has ever
seen.
While in the US civil war, the two territories were relatively even, with the Confederacy
winning key early victories and even making inroads into the North in places like Pennsylvania,
the odds are this time the war goes much more quickly.
Because the British are coming.
The early rebellion would likely be fierce and take the colonists by surprise.
The odds are the southern troops might be able to take some territory and defend their
region, because the north would not be expecting a fight from their fellow colonies.
But when word got back to the Crown about what was going on, they would be likely to
respond fiercely.
While the United Kingdom stayed neutral in the civil war and even considered giving aid
to the Confederacy to weaken their old enemies, this time the whole force of the British empire
would be bearing down on the rebels.
And the man in charge would have a big role in it.
George IV passed away in 1830 and left no heirs, so his successor was William IV, his
younger brother and one of the oldest monarchs to ever take the throne at 65.
But while he only reigned for seven years due to his age, he was one of the most consequential
kings of the era.
A reformer and strong leader, he approved of the abolition of slavery and also restricted
child labor and improved the welfare system.
However, he believed in keeping the British empire strong - and would not take well to
a rebellion.
And the second American Revolution would go down just like the first.
The early successes of the southern rebellion would be short-lived, as reinforcements streamed
over from Great Britain and delivered arms and soldiers.
Any colonial resistance would be met with far superior forces, and the odds are that
the southern slave-holders would suffer heavy losses early on.
William IV would perhaps offer them a chance to surrender, a wise move - but Calhoun, as
the ringleader of the rebellion, would be unlikely to take the olive branch.
So his army would go down in flames, and the British crown would be unlikely to deal as
kindly with him as the United States did with Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, bringing
an end to the institution of slavery in the American colonies.
And from there, things might work out surprisingly well.
The path to abolishing slavery in our timeline was bumpy, with the assassination of Abraham
Lincoln knee-capping efforts to enforce racial equality and a compromise over a possibly-stolen
election a decade later leading to the end of most reconstruction efforts.
This would lead to a century of racial oppression and segregation in the south.
But in this timeline, the British would be responsible for overseeing the aftermath,
and they would likely keep tighter control of the southern colonies.
The aid of the northern colonies in the war effort would mean the colonies as a whole
wouldn’t be punished, but the rebellious territories would likely see a heavier British
presence for a long time, and any local officials who aided in the rebellion would see themselves
forced out of power permanently.
But a lot of this would have to do with a new figure.
The elderly William IV would be dead by 1837, and he would be replaced not by another King,
but by his niece Victoria in the latest complex succession.
Victoria took office at only eighteen years old, and her reign was one of the most consequential
in British history.
She was known as a strong supporter of British expansionism, and would reign for sixty-three
years - the longest term of service in the history of the British crown until the modern
day.
So the fate of the colonies would to a large extent be determined by the whims of one woman.
Well, sort of.
Britain has been a constitutional monarchy since 1688, and additional restrictions on
the monarch’s power were put in place since.
That meant Parliament had as much of an impact on the laws of the time as Queen Victoria,
and some monarchs were much more powerful than others.
Victoria would inherit a British empire at its peak, as well as an unsettled status quo
in the North American colonies.
But the leadership of the colonies, in helping to put down the rebellion of the southern
states, would be in good standing with the British government, and the region would be
seen as the crown jewel of the territories.
And that means one major question would be brewing.
We all know how the United States gained independence in our timeline, but what about Canada?
It was a much more sedate affair, with the British territories holding conferences to
ask for independence and negotiating an exit from the United Kingdom.
There was no revolution, and in many ways the British were ready to let it go.
They wanted the country to defend itself to take the financial burden of them, and many
English-Canadian nationalists wanted to unify the territories and consolidate their control
over French-speaking Quebec.
But with no significant tension with the parent country, there was no desire for a hard break.
So when Canada became independent, they chose to remain a Commonwealth country and maintained
the Queen as their head of state while becoming autonomous in all government affairs.
Would the same have happened to the United territories in this alternate timeline?
It’s possible, but there are a few things in the way.
For one thing, the United States is much more fertile territory and had many more resources
than Canada.
Almost doubling the territory gives Britain almost an entire continent to control - but
it also means much higher cost to administer the territory.
The odds are that Victoria and Parliament would be open to these negotiations for independence,
but they might drive a harder bargain - wanting preferable trade deals long-term with the
new country to ensure access to its resources.
Whatever the terms of the deal, the odds are that they would be preferable to what had
been imposed on them by the British crown as a colony.
And so this new country is born into a whole different world.
In an instant, the United States of North America was born, and became the largest country
in the world by sheer space, containing all the territory of Canada and much of the modern-day
United States.
It would have the benefits of decades of buildup from the British empire, as well as the scars
of a recent rebellion.
But in this time of growth, it’s not the only country in North America to benefit.
With the American Revolution never happening, Spain likely had the southwest mostly to itself.
Without the boost of the American Revolution to the hopes of colonized countries worldwide,
would Mexico have successfully won its own war in 1821?
The magic 8-ball says outlook cloudy - so it’s possible that southwest North America
would still be dominated by the Spanish crown, holding not just Mexico but most of what’s
the American southwest today.
Is another war brewing?
Probably not!
While the territories of North America did eventually gain independence, they are far
from abandoned by Great Britain.
Instead, they’re likely considered extended family - and if someone punches your cousin,
the odds are you’re jumping into the fray.
So Spain would be very cautious about trying to take any territory from this new country,
and vice versa.
While it’s possible that the two empires could go to war again - maybe provoked by
similar events to the Spanish-American War - that would be a much larger conflict and
not likely to erupt immediately.
So it’s possible that Texas and California might never be united with the rest of the
territory - but the new country is also very much not in need of extra territory.
But this would change a lot of things going forward - including for many of the area’s
most oppressed people.
What would happen to the Native Americans in this new status quo?
It wouldn’t be all sunshine and roses, since the British - like all colonial powers - were
responsible for mass displacement and murder.
But certain key atrocities might be averted.
There was never a President Andrew Jackson in this timeline, so there was never a Trail
of Tears.
Much of the United States’ worst atrocities towards Natives happened in the rush west,
which would happen in a much more orderly method in this timeline.
However, the US and Canada shared certain atrocities such as the residential schools
where Native children were taken from their parents and forcibly educated to behave more
like white people.
Those would likely still exist here under the British and the new government, but there
is hope for a better future.
Today, Canada’s programs of reparations and autonomy for natives go further than the
United States, and that might carry over in the union.
But what about the victims of slavery?
Well, for one thing, slavery ends thirty years earlier.
That’s generations of people who aren’t born into bondage.
The worst of segregation never happens as well, but for the millions of people who become
free when slavery ends, things would likely turn out very differently.
The British control huge swaths of territory in Africa and the Caribbean, and the odds
are they might offer some former slaves - especially those taken near the end of the slave trade
- the choice to stay in the territory or return to their homeland.
It’s impossible to know how many would take the offer, but the odds are most would not
want to be displaced if they had built a life here.
So today’s country might be an equally diverse place, but one without the century of racial
tension that culminated in the growing pains of the civil rights movement.
And in some ways, history bends towards the same end.
The territories did eventually gain independence, but with much less bloodshed.
And most of European history proceeded apace - including, eventually, the World Wars.
The growing tension between Germany and the rest of Europe would have still happened,
but with one big difference - the closer ties between the nation taking up most of North
America and its former colonial power.
In our timeline, Britain was largely left alone to fight the German-aligned forces sweeping
across Europe for the first part of both wars, and it took major provocations to get the
United States involved - a dirty German-Mexican deal the first time, and Pearl Harbor the
second.
But this time, as a Commonwealth nation, we likely would have been eager to get involved
and help Great Britain.
Canada entered both wars long before the United States, and the added forces might have helped
win World War I, and potentially ended Hitler’s reign several years before the Allies were
able to in our timeline.
Which raises the question - would it have been better if the United States didn’t
win its independence by revolution?
It’s unlikely that Britain would have kept the colonies forever, and even far-flung colonies
like Australia gained their independence peacefully eventually.
Part of this was the natural decline of the British empire, but many countries were able
to negotiate for an exit and the benefits of commonwealth status without conflict.
Some countries weren’t so lucky in the modern era, including Kenya, which fought a difficult
battle for independence in the 20th century, but a country largely seen as an extension
of Britain would have had an easier go.
So what would the country look like now?
Well, for one thing, it would be the largest country in the world!
Combining Canada and the United States makes it larger than Russia, and while there’s
no guarantee that it would have all the territories in the southwest by now, it’s likely to
have expanded somewhat.
Both the United States and Great Britain are strong economies, so this new country would
have the same strong infrastructure to build off.
Of course, not everything would be sunshine and roses - all of the United Kingdom, Canada,
and the United States still have problems with treatment of non-white residents in their
countries, and any colonial power will be dealing with its past sins for a long time.
But it would likely stand alone as the world’s greatest power.
The United States is arguably the world’s only superpower today, but the odds are good
that Great Britain would have much more power and influence than it does in our timeline.
An early victory in World War II thanks to North America entering earlier would have
given Britain a stronger hand in negotiations post-war, and it would have kept many of its
colonial holdings.
While the anti-colonial movement would have continued and they likely would have given
many of them independence, it might have been a smoother process.
After all, their biggest colony wound up gaining independence peacefully.
The only thing we know for sure?
If the American Revolution didn’t happen, there likely would have been a lot more tea
and tears in North America when the Queen passed away.
Want to know about some other historical hypotheticals?
Check out “Hitler’s Plans for the World If He Won”, or “What If Colombus Never
Discovered the Americas” instead.