Would it have been so terrible if America had remained part of the British empire? Perhaps slavery would have ended sooner and WWI might have been avoided.
Brad DeLong nonetheless endorses the Revolution:
Remember that the political evolution of Britain toward democracy was not foreordained as of 1775. (Indeed, the pressure exerted by the example of the United States was a powerful democratizing force in Britain throughout the whole of the nineteenth century.) Britain in 1775 was a corrupt monarchical oligarchy–albeit one with much softer rule, a much more effective state, and a much broader and more open system of political competition within the oligarchy than has been standard in human empires. It is quite likely that–absent the American Revolution and the Great Democratic Example across the seas, and absent the long reign of Victoria–the political evolution of nineteenth-century Britain would have stuck where it was at the accession of George III, or even moved backward away from democracy to some degree.
I’ll add a few points:
1. A split was due sooner or later. When the Revolution came, while there were many refugees, we avoided serious civil war. (That being said, insofar as a causal connection is present, our later Civil War is the best argument against American independence.)
2. America had leaders of uncommon quality at the time of independence. Admittedly this may not have been evident ex ante but certainly it was true ex post.
3. The United States was founded on the pro-liberty ideals of the eighteenth century; the nineteenth century might not have provided such propitious foundations. For instance New Zealand was conceived as a nanny state from the beginning.
4. Much of North American territory probably was more valuable in American hands than French or Spanish. An independent American government had better ability and incentive to gain these lands than would have the Crown.
Historical counterfactuals are always problematic, but I too will endorse the American Revolution.
Comments are closed.