One thing to point out is that Britain's recent experience with Cromwell is why they were very skeptical about the American Republic being able to surive. They expected Washington to be a second Cromwell. Which is why, when he declined to hold onto power, he won a fair amount of respect and admiration from his contemporaries in the old country, including, allegedly, George III himsefl.
Indeed, I think we have largely forgotten just how crucial Washington's character was to the development of the US and how it resonates down to the present and will continue to do so into the future. He commanded the loyalty of the Continental Army and he could have used it as the easy route to power, just as Cromwell - not to mention Caesar before either of them - had done. It would have been simple for him to declare himself King, or Lord Protector, or whatever, because the boys with the guns answered to him. But he chose not to roll that way.
Well phrased: "redrawing the map of Europe" not to prevent future wars but "to prevent future wars from becoming Britain's problem"...Sums up the Congress of Vienna quite well. And the Versailles Conference as well.
absolutely not. the Congress of Vienna achieved its goal and for a century there was no [full-scale] war between major European powers on the European continent. the 'concert of Europe' worked. why? one main reason was the victorious powers didn't humiliate or even punish France for ultimately losing the Napoleonic wars, a series of very devastating wars spanning roughly 15yrs. the 'Treaty of Versailles' was no such thing. the French were full on vengeance and revenge. absurdly high reparations, loss of territory and even breaking up countries plus declaring the loser as sole and ultimately responsible for the war is not a good formula for ensuring lasting peace in Europe. and sure enough, less than 20yrs later the whole thing started again. much worse than the first time. at least the British tried to prevent the French from doing some of it but did not get much support from president Wilson and his naive notions of how Europe should work past WW1. the result was the French went ahead with their idea of 'peace'.
@@embreis2257 European was too busy carving up Africa and Asia to be fighting each other in Europe. And by European standards, the Crimean War, the Piedmont war, the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars were mere skirmishes...
Fun fact: the modern day American accent is more similarity sounding to the previous English accent before King George III created the form of English linguistic used by British of today.
Love how Britain behaved like a parent of a rebellious kid „You want to live on your own? Fine! Let’s see how long it takes till you come back and admit I was always right”
I'm genuinely impressed with how well you can sum up topics like this. It's both extremely simplified but also essentially the whole story at the same time.
0:49 the British were surprisingly not that wrong Currently social mobility in the USA is far lower than in the UK Essentially while the USA democratically peaked in high school the UK peaked later
0:49 knowing that currently the USA does have a pseudo monarchy the UK wasn't that far off heck the Usa even has a lower social mobility rate than in the Uk
We Yanks are going to finish the job John Paul Jones started in 1778 by conquering all of Limeyland. We will start our attack at Whitehaven with our final military objects to force all Limey pubs to serve all beer cold, to require able bodied Limey women to shave their legs, and forbid the offense practice of putting an letter "u" in words like color, flavor, favor, harbor, and neighbor. 🤪 -Dave the Bloody Yank
I think a lot of people forget that the British Empire was foremost a mercantile one and had other irons in the fire, so to speak. Around that time, Britain was focused on expanding its market network further into India and beyond where it could source exotic goods. Our exports to the New World colonies made that life possible and enabled them to have a high standard of living. IIRC, America imported 80% of its manufactured goods from Britain prior to the war. In return, America exported cash crops; fish, rice, tobacco, and wood among others. Apart from the Seven Years War and the Revolutionary War; most of the British focus was on expanding markets in India. I think cooler heads in Britain prevailed; we’d lost the American colonies, the effort to try and take it back was logistically and financially excessive; we had a significant market there still and our traders wanted to instead develop that into a major trading partner, which war would obviously interfere with. In the Treaty of Paris, Britain took quite a far-sighted approach and concluded it with this future trade in mind. We were not getting the colonies back, we settled borders (as we understood them at the time), and both countries continued to benefit from the trade. Much to France’s chagrin, no doubt. They had invested a lot into the American Revolution that they really couldn’t afford. I think they’d been banking on becoming the major US trade partner on its independence. It didn’t happen. Of course, with their own efforts to raise taxes to pay for their involvement led to their own revolutionary problems. There will always be those in both governments who wanted to see each other fail, of course there were, but the majority within their respective governments realised that the better option was to put the war behind them and go with enlightened self interest: focusing on the option that benefitted them the most.
Yes, and don't forget that the cotton gin was invented in 1793. Textiles were the lifeblood of the British Empire, beyond even stuff like opium or steel. To add more support to your claim, the PM Shelbourne's government was able to split the US from France and Spain diplomatically and economically by negotiating the treaty directly with John Jay (although it was on Jay's initiative). No doubt that paid major dividends in the next two decades for the British. They retained one of their most important trade partners (despite British impressment) throughout the French Rev. and Napoleonic wars... undoubtedly a major factor in how the island nation was able to outlast most of Europe in a prolonged conflict, although how much of a factor that is, I'm not certain.
tbf they went to india primarily to make up for losing the 13 colonies, they would have had a trade port, and maybe even a small colony but they would have never taken all of India had the Americans never broken free
@@SM-ys8lw Thanks for the comment. The East India Company was formed in 1600 to trade in the Indian Ocean region [East and South Asia- later on also Southeast Asia]. As far as I am aware, it had nothing to do with any events regarding the Thirteen Colonies. The British Government only took control from the EIC in 1858 - becoming the British Raj - after the Indian Rebellion in 1857. The discontent in American started around 1763, after the French and Indian War. This trouble flared again 4 years later when Parliament passed the Townshend Acts in 1767, which then leads to further events that spawned the American Independence movement. If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me. Again, thank you for the comment and have a great day.
Most of that is true apart from the standard of living. Most British peasants in the countryside were still serfs at this point and their standard of living didn’t improve until the Industrial Revolution some 300 years later
@@SM-ys8lw I'm not sure that's true. I agree with what bonaggy said, although there is definitely an argument to be made that the American Revolution freed up resources to go into the continuing colonization of India. It probably also shaped the approach to the British Raj after the Sepoy Rebellion.
People don't realize how rich India was. There was no reason whatsoever to focus on the US with that prize. In hindsight it sounds crazy, but that's just how it was.
@@neeljavia2965 Probably just a joke at Hamilton the Musical, however I did find that at the signing of the US constitution Hamilton was the only member of the New York Delegation to sign it since the other members left the convention early. And Rhode Island sent nobody. This led Washington to allegedly state "The Constitution was ratified by 11 states and Colonel Hamilton."
There was also no need to retake America. Pomeranz's book "The Great Divergance" touches on this, there was no need for the UK to invade the US as they only needed it for its resources (rather than say, its taxes or manpower) and since the US embraced free marketeerism it could just buy these resources on the market just as before the revolution. Given that America was now self-govening and self-defending, it actually remvoed the costs for the British empire, but not the benefits. Essentially American independence was a win-win.
The British Empire was an accidental result of profiteering companies. The British Americans never stood in the way of profit, so there was nothing to be gained with war
@@X525Crossfire To this day the people of the UK still call North America (and other places) "The Colonies". As far as the people 2 and 3 hundred years ago were concerned, the difference between an independent US (or Canada) and a centrally managed one was a minor detail. They were still British. So they didn't get the memo that they should have been embarrassed about the loss. Talking to British people over the past few decades, I've come to the conclusion that some of the anti-government back-lash we see in the UK today is a result of some portion of the the UK population JUST REALIZING that the British Empire has lost a lot of power and prestige (especially over the past 100 years), and they're effectively in mourning over that loss of global prestige. It's remarkable that they've been so insulated from any perspective other than their own that it's taken them this long to truly feel the result of hundreds of years of mismanagement.
In reality it was because the Rothschilds, who own the bank of England, also owned the united States considering it had one of their central banks from day 1 and the actual corporation United States of America.
A fact I find important noting is that the British were more worried about France or Spain instead of the young USA. If Hurting the USA came at the expense of granting Colonial Spain an edge, the British would've preferred to help the USA instead of a Continental Rival.
@@chequereturnedThis will forever be in my opinion the funniest thing in british history 😂 british banks facilitated the purchase of lousiana from france which the money went to building a fleet to invade britian by france meaning britian literally funded the invasion of britian 😂
@@LoneWhiteMage "why the f*** is everyone asking me about all this shit, I'm literally just here to wave and hand out medals"-King George III (in reality).
Britain : "Don't worry Your Majesty. We'll invade America with our British rock bands repurposing black American blues music in the 1960's. We'll also invade in the 2000's with our actors who can mimic perfect American accents. Victory will be complete" 🤣
everyone didnt die for nothing in ww1. the british got to humiliate germany for essentially no reason other than being a powerful threat, and to this day we think they were the bad guys, when they didnt even start the war!
@@ThugHunterfromIsrael Invasion of Belgium, Invasion of Serbia (Austrian and German troops coordinated the attack on Belgrade). Invasion of Russia. It was Germany that started this war, without Germany's consent the Austrians would not have attacked Serbia xD Austria was a junior partner in the Germany-Austria relationship It's not that Austria attacks Serbia and Germany has its hand in the potty. Hardly, Germany was treated leniently after the First War. They were to be destroyed in the sense that there were clear plans to undo the unification of 1871 and revert to the pre-French-Prussian War borders. This would have been the best solution, and for the 123-year Germanization of Poland and taking part in its partition, all of Upper Silesia should have been given back and the eastern borders should have been rolled back to 1772. This was not done by which Germany got the opportunity to recreate its industry and the war would have been fought regardless of whether Hitler would have taken over or not.
@@drawingparallels Mainly WWII. WW1 was the result of globalization. WW2 could have been prevented almost certainly if Germany didn't get treated so harshly, along with Japan, India, and Ho Chi Minh being snubbed because they weren't white. Really Versailles created the overwhelming majority of international conflicts even to this day and likely for many decades or even centuries to come. I blame the French, like I do most of hte time anyways.
If you've read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, he essentially predicted everything to do with the American Revolution. The colonists would rebel, that the colonials would win their independence, and that Britain would actually benefit economically from this overall. And there were other places in the world for Britain to export its poorest and most unruly citizens without needing to pay for wars.
@@franciscoacevedo3036, the Continental Congress was still trying to make a deal with George III in 1776 (John Dickinson's Olive Branch Petition). Smith was right because George told Congress to pound sand.
It was basically the Korean and Vietnam wars 200 years before they happened. People with nothing to lose will fight tooth and nail, and the colonists were being taxed at absurd rates with little social freedom.
@@SconnerStudios Actually the taxes on the colonists were very light compared to the taxes levied in Britain. And that's Adam Smith's point: maintaining a military force in the colonies cost taxes on British industry which would not be necessary with free trade. Meanwhile the Americans rebelled against the monopolies in colonialism rather than taxes perse.
@@DinoDev_OG Landed nobility don't "serve" the king like the court does. They just pay him his taxes and follow his laws. Besides that they can do whatever they want in their own territory.
@@hellenicboi14 that's what I meant, a feudal lord gives taxes, but other than that their land is their land, I could've phrased it better. The point is, by American nobility he mean the united states. In 1771 the the people in Maryland considered themselves british (they basically were) so he is british nobility
They did TRY to undo that in the closing days of the War of 1812 by trying to take New Orleans before the treaty got through, but they got completely obliterated by Andrew Jackson (aided by some pirates lol) because they decided to walk through a killzone with earthwork fortifications on the American side, suffering a 30-to-1 casualty ratio.
@@gimmethegepgunin 1814 we took a little trip, along with col. Jackson down the mighty mississipp’-I hear there was a bacon and beans picnic along the way
I always found it interesting how Virginia went from the oldest and most loyal colony, even siding with the crown during the English Civil War, just to become the seat of government in the most anti monarchy nation to exist since ancient Rome
@brandonlyon730 well, the English did. Us Yanks haven't toppled any monarchies in our own country, though of course the CIA has funded countless coups, so it's possible we're the most anti-monarchy by volume, if not by spirit.
And let's be honest, the Roman Republic wasn't remotely what we'd consider a democratic republic as we know it today. It was basically an oligarchy with some quirky republic-like qualities to it. They were certainly not above authoritarian government, despite what they'd profess. seats in the senate were almost entirely based on being a member of the nobility. Voting assemblies were very weighted against the proletariat etc. And as the Republic entered its final years, it was clear that it was descending into a monarchy like system.
@@RobespierreThePoof yeah im honestly getting a little tired of how the same jokes are always made for every country (britain: "that sounds expensive" for example) yet he only uploads 1-2 times a week. More power to History matters for making this his job but the output of the videos and the repetitive humor is not exciting me.
Maine was part of Massachusetts back then, and after the whole taking-part-of-Maine-and-making-it-New-Ireland happened, Mainers went down to Boston and were like "help us" and the Massachusetts government was like "that sounds... expensive. good luck handling it yourself"... and that's part of why 8 years later Maine split off and became their own state
Yup, and all that took was causing america to have slave states and free states. Maine being The first “free” and Missouri being The first “slave” since that and that was the process until the Kansas-Nebraska act
Maine was *only* part of Massachusetts from 1691 when the Province of Massachusetts Bay was formed by the merging of Massachusetts Bay Colony, the Plymouth Colony, the Province of Maine, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket and Nova Scotia (which included New Brunswick at that time), all but Maine, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket and Plymouth Colony reasserted their self-government from Massachusetts, and despite all attempts after 1691, Maine only managed to do it in to mid 19th century manly because of disputes over the balance of slave and free state. Sad really, Maine was the child of Sir Ferdinando Gorges (which Maine ought to have adopted his coat of arms like Maryland did with the coat of arms of Baron Baltimore), and alas, his vision for New England never came to pass, and the coat of arms of the Council for New England would slap hard as the coat of arms of New England, in fact New England ought to adopt the coat of arms of the Council for New England as the coat of arms of New England.
We Yanks are going to finish the job John Paul Jones started in 1778 by conquering all of Limeyland. We will start our attack at Whitehaven with our final military objects to force all Limey pubs to serve all beer cold, to require able bodied Limey women to shave their legs, and forbid the offense practice of putting an letter "u" in words like color, flavor, favor, harbor, and neighbor. 🤪 -Dave the Bloody Yank
We Yanks are going to finish the job John Paul Jones started in 1778 by conquering all of Limeyland. We will start at Whitehaven with our final military objects to force all Limey pubs to serve all beer cold, to require able bodied Limey women to shave their legs, and forbid the offense practice of putting an letter "u" in words like color, flavor, favor, harbor, and neighbor. 🤪 -Dave the Bloody Yank
In fairness to the americans: all of the British were dead, so it was more like repopulation than colonization, not like anyone was alive to object to it!
And then we stupidly invaded Canada bringing about the war of 1812. If England had not been occupied with Napoleon, there would be no US today. They came that close to defeating us.
Not really. While it is true in the beginning the British were dominating the US was getting better and turned into the US slowly pushing the Brit’s back with a lot of their major offensives failing. Hell people like to talk about them taking dc but everyone conveniently forgets that right after that the army got crushed and forced out of the US. It’s why they relented and restored the borders they weren’t sure they could hold it and it’d just waste more resources and manpower then worth as they truly thought we would never stop fighting. Hell they even gave into most of the US demands.
@@nevets2371 Technically all three are correct. Sir Humphry called it alumium, then aluminum and then he settled on aluminium. Thx Sir Humphry for kickstarting the spelling wars in 1807.
@@JohnPretty1 You mean, correctly? George III was pretty active in pushing for the continuation of war. He wouldn’t really have his mental break until after the Revolution. With a brief flare up in 1765 before that. But that’s 9 years before the Revolution and so inapplicable here.
@@JohnPretty1 I find it quite comical that you would mock all Americans, because someone who may or may not even be American, correctly mentioned George III who was most certainly in power at the time. Curious to hear where you hail from, so I can mock your entire nation simply because you personally don't know anything.
A lot of people seem to forget that Britain was still locked in conflict with France much nearer home and had neither the money or resources to engage in a war on two fronts. If this had not been the case and Britain could have just concentrated on America things could have been very different.
As a Brit i can see why the American British would rebel against the old empire! British people from the UK even sailed over to fight against there leaders! Still impresses me how an island took over so much territory!
The Americans' best propagandist was English: Tom Paine. Best ship captain: John Paul Jones, a Scot. Unfortunately, Charles Lee wasn't as accomplished as a general.
@@Paddythelaad Boston was then, like all the 13 colonies, overwhelmingly *English* and that was still the case up until the mass immigration of Irish to Boston in the mid to late 19th century.
Funnily enough if the Empire had granted some representation in parliament the colonies probably wouldn't have rebelled. The slogan, no taxation without representation, was popular for the time. I think the empire saw the colonials as uncivilized barbarians and were horrified at the thought .😅
The UK shamelessly manufactured and sold ships to the Loseracy in fact it was Theo. Roosevelt's uncle who was working behind the scenes trying to acquire the ships for the south. All in all he chose to stay in the UK and Teddy Roosevelt unlike Bill Clinton pardoning his brother would never issue him a pardon
Because we arrogantly assumed Britain would always be the most powerful country on earth, so we didn't see the USA overtaking us. But now Pax Americana is basically Pax Britannia continued (i.e. a global rules based system promoting free trade upheld by overwhelming military power), so we're both doing very well from all of it I'd say.
It's interesting the different takes on the War of 1812. Americans always seem to celebrate it as their first official chance to stand up to a foreign power and show that their young country wasn't going to back down to anyone. The Star Spangled Banner is even written about a battle in that war and is sung at every sporting event and patriotic gathering ever since. But to Britain, it was just an annoyance that happened while they were already at war with bigger threats like Russia and Napoleon. It would have been like if during World War II, while the US military was busy focusing all their forces on Hitler in Europe and Japan in the Pacific, Mexico decided to try to take back Texas by attacking the border. Truman or Roosevelt would have been like "Really? Like we don't have enough problems right now"
Fascinating. So often we view History in Retrospect rather than finding original source material about what the people and their politicians were actually thinking at the time.
Another factor to consider: After the war of 1812, the US Navy's firepower was on full display after dealing with the Barbary Pirates. As such, knowing that the USA had a FUNCTIONAL navy that had considerable firepower packed into their ships (although limited in number) actually made any effort to transport troops or supplies to America even more difficult than during the Revolution. Meaning that despite having a far superior number of ships flying the UK flag, it was a question of numbers vs strength, which (at the time) the UK wasn't willing to risk due to European interests, for an effort to sail 1/2 way around the world and possibly lose ships that would be needed closer to home.
Britain had an interesting policy that lasted pretty much until the 1940s where they would get hostile towards any navy that could rival their own. After the War of 1812, they determined that while American Naval power was potent, it wasn't exactly close enough to be a threat. They were pretty sure the US wouldn't want to make a try on their home territory. However... Europe was another story, and was part of the reason Britain got involved in WW1 against Germany.
I think most folks have a mistaken idea of how well the battle with the Barbary States went for America. Some of the high points include burning our own captured ship, to prevent it being used against us. And paying ransom for its sailors. There was certainly some impressive actions and tribute payments were ended, but it was ended with a treaty, not an outright victory. I think its primary effect on European sensibilities was that if the Americans with their puny navy can accomplish that, just think what we could do! Shortly, thereafter North Africa was split between Spain, France, Italy, and Britain. Winning for America.
@@rajkaranvirk7525 And for what? An attritioned naval fleet half a year from home during one of the hottest flashpoints in European history? Winning is about more than being the more powerful side. It means nothing when your defense is on loan in a war that could predicate on a single fleet being missing.
The last attempt Britain ever made against American territory was San Juan Island during the Pig War. However with political maneuvering by Winfield Scott, the negotiations for it were delayed long enough to fight the Civil War, after which it was given to the US in arbitration.
We Yanks are going to finish the job John Paul Jones started in 1778 by conquering all of Limeyland. We will start our attack at Whitehaven with our final military objects to force all Limey pubs to serve all beer cold, to require able bodied Limey women to shave their legs, and forbid the offense practice of putting an letter "u" in words like color, flavor, favor, harbor, and neighbor. 🤪 -Dave the Bloody Yank
Huh, the context of the British ruling class having experienced the English Civil Wars, Cromwell’s Commonwealth, and the drift back to monarchy is something I hadn’t thought of before.
@@JohnPretty1 You don't understand monarchy. England is a parliamentary monarchy and has been since the middle ages and our King is not a "paper tiger", England has never been an absolute monarchy i.e. the monarch unconstrained by any constitutions or legislatures, the closest was Charles I of England with him attempting to establish an absolutist government for which he then lost two Civil War over and sadly, his head. Monarchy is more than just a monarch, if that was the case then it would just be like a dictatorship i.e. mealy held together by a strongman collapsing every time the strongman dies, like Cromwell and his Protectorate, for every Oliver... you have Richard.
Fist of all *English* ruling class. Second of all, there were three regimes during the interregnum, the first Commonwealth regime which lasted form 1649-53, then the Protectorate which lasted from December 1653 to May 1659, and last was the second Commonwealth regime which lasted from May 1659 to May 1660. The first Commonwealth regime was just that non-functioning that it ended up being dismantled in December 1653 and the the Protectorate established in its place with Cromwell as Lord Protector (a medieval English title for a regent) until his death in 1658. Richard Cromwell (his son) inherited the title of Lord Protector, he got deposed by the Army in May 1659. The Protectorate was the only regime that was the most stable and long lasting out of the three regimes of the interregnum, but like all dictatorships, they are only held together by a strongman collapsing every time the strongman dies, as authority is personal not institutional, unlike monarchy. With Richard deposed in May 1659 the Rump Parliament was recalled and set about dismantling the Protectorate, this resulted in again a non-functioning state, and its this problem that resulted in a Restoration, two non-functioning states and a state that only function by the personality of Oliver Cromwell (who was now dead), only real option, Restoration of the monarchy.
@@foundationofBritain buddy slow down. I didn't ask for a dry recap of the Commonwealth that didn't really do anything but expand on an asterisk. And I said "British" in context of by 1776 it was Britain, not England.
The American Revolution, as taught to UK school children. "After several years of hard, bloody fighting, we finally managed to kick those no-good yanks out of our empire forever! This allowed us to focus on Africa, the middle east, and India, all of which went fantastic!"
You might be surprised to learn that the American Revolution is not taught in British schools at all, we don't care about it and it plays no role in our national history or identity. Half of us wouldn't be able to tell you what century it happened in. Sorry. For us it was Tuesday. For you it was a big deal. Sorry.
Another significant factor to consider is the heavy private British investment in America. For the entirety of the 19th century, British financial interests were the largest foreign investor in U.S. business activity by far, not to mention the largest customer for U.S. commodities. British banking provided the capital for U.S. westward expansion. Although the U.S. gained its political independence from Britain in the early 1780s, in many respects, it remained an economic colony for many decades after, which reduced the incentives for the British government to engage in costly wars of imperial re-acquisition.
Possible video idea Why did Grover Cleveland get elected, then lose an election to then turn around and win the election after that? So far, he’s the only president to have won his initial election, lose reelection then get reelected
As someone from Detroit, the only American city ever surrendered to an enemy, they certainly tried. First, after The Revolution the limeys didn’t leave until 1796. After The War of 1812 we were under British for more than a year after Hull’s surrender.
Ironically, the US revolution ended up contributing heavily to Great Britain becoming such a dominant empire. As you said in the video, the British got all the benefits of trade with the Americans without any of the costs beyond tarrifs. Keep in mind that colonization is incredibly expensive and rarely profitable on the whole until it reaches a very advanced state. You basically need to run a police state, operate a government, and pay for armed forces. So suddenly, the Americans were responsible for all of that, and our economy was reliant on trade with Europe. As the British industrualized, this created an incredible demand for raw goods like cotton. Textiles in particular formed the economic backbone of the British industrial economy. As demand skyrocketed, the colonists pushed Westward (which they were doing anyways), bringing them into conflict with new native groups. There's no doubt in my mind that the British would have been more reluctant to wage war against the natives, particularly since the Napoleonic wars and other colonization efforts in Africa and East Asia grew more and more costly--fighting natives in America would just not have been as appealing (and indeed, the British prohibiting colonists from attacking natives was a major cause of the American revolution). And as the Americans took more land from native peoples, they sold more raw goods and bought more finished goods, furthering British trade. Yes, the North industrialized very quickly in relation to the rest of the world, but it was still a very productive economic relationship for the British, who dominated world production until the 20th century. Not to mention that Americans often borrowed money from British financiers and went into buisness with them, building multinational corporations that strengthened British world hegemony. In summary, the British got all the economic benefits of having a super-productive economically reliant partner in the USA without the costs of actually managing this massive territory. This freed the British to push even more into India, East Asia, and Africa. It also helped spread English-language cultural influence and free market capitalism, both of which benefitted the already economically acendant British Empire. If the British managed to win the Revolutionary War, they would have had to somehow reincorporate the Americans back into the Empire. Sure, they would be able to levvy taxes, but that would probably have just stunted the growth of the valuable American economy to the point where it hurt British manufacturing. Oh, and I highly doubt the British would have been able to abolish the slave trade or slavery without a massive fight, and slavery is TERRIBLE for an economy.
They did retake the US through the banking system back in 1913. Some of you know the details... Also, what about the war of 1812? That doesn't count as trying to retake it?
The British also wanted to create an independent Native American state in the Northwest Territory (Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana) to serve as buffer against another U.S. invasion of Canada.
@@RoyalRegimentofScotland that and Britain lost any ground they had in the territory and failed to secure any leverage to force the US to give up any land
@@shadewolf0075 Britian didn't own any ground in the territory that was supposed to become a native state anyway. It was territory of the natives. During the war the US army walked in and practically destroyed the place and the rest of the natives fled into actual british territory in Canada. There was no need for the plan anymore as the natives weren't there anymore neither did britian actually want US territory anyway.
@@RoyalRegimentofScotland well it was more or less that the US was in effective control of the territory but Britain and Tecumseh’s confederacy failed to take and hold any ground there
@@shadewolf0075 Britian could've pushed to have the US recede the territory back, but it simply made no sense by that point as the natives had already fractured and fled to british North America in 1813 and made no attempts to go back and retake it.
@@pauldavis5665 It's funny how mad they are that we don't care about them. They get all worked up we don't know everything about their neighbors like they know everything about every state that is larger than their countries.
