Why didn't the USA just wait 200 years and politely ask for independence like the rest of the colonies?

Why didn't the USA just wait 200 years and politely ask for independence like the rest of the colonies?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Well?

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The UK let them go because at the time the French controlled the Mississippi and there was a real possibility of American rebels siding with the French and some kind of French Empire emerging in the Americas if the war dragged on too long.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >just have 200 years of hindsight bro
    Shit thread. OP is a gay and jannies are trannies.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    jorge washington was Iberian and he knew that america was meant to be brown

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Staying under the dead hand of Britain would have sapped us of all our vitality and spirit, so that by the time we did become "independent", we would still just be colonies on the east coast with no desire to conquer the frontier. America as we know it does not exist without manifest destiny; we would be another Canada but with more blacks

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      No it wouldn't. Britain was vital and energetic in the 18th and 19th centuries not like today, they were on the cusp of the industrial revolution and global Empire. Standing together with Britain the Anglo could have conquered the world.

      >but muh sacred liberties
      Not all that important in the larger scale of things. Do you really think the US would never get representation even as its economy grows and becomes hugely important to the British Empire? That you'd still be selling beaver pelts to pay taxes to the King? The typical colonial gentleman still had enormous liberty being part of the Anglo trade network anyway, he could use English banks and appeal to English law.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Instead of having to fend for itself, and claiming its place as a great power, America as part of the British Empire would just be another colony to provide manpower, tax revenue, and resources for the British to pursue their aims around the world. Conquering the frontier and asserting dominance over the New World would have taken a backseat to India, China, great game with Russia, etc.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Do you really think the US would never get representation even as its economy grows and becomes hugely important to the British Empire?
        Why would it? The Indians never got that and they were hugely important to the British.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >A net drain lodestone from beginning to end.
          >"hugely important".
          The Raj cost more than it gave back. Pajeets are eternally on suicide watch from this.
          >inb4 45 gigatrillion dollars
          lol, lmao even.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >The Raj cost more than it gave back
            So did the USA

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >an increase in quality of life and opportunity for millions of Englishmen vs Calcutta's Infinity Welfare Black Pit of brown NEETs
            Wrong again, Rajneep.To this day, The UK is still bankrolling Indian, Pakistani, and Banglandeshi welfare spending. The absolute state of it all.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The USA did not provide an increase in quality of life for Englishmen, it just wasted their resources defending barren territory.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >No it wouldn't. Britain was vital and energetic
        Shut up, Australia would have had all of Indonesia conquered instead of an entire generation dead at Gallipoli

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >unable to row in a straight line from the boat to the beach on a full moon over a mere 400 meters, somehow get mixed up despite months of rehearsals and preparation.
          >land unopposed and sit on the beaches at ANZAC Cove.
          >Wait some more for sunrise.
          >get surrounded by the Turks.
          >"The poms did this."
          Do australians really? If the Gallipoli campaign failed it’s almost single-handedly thanks to ANZAC moronness. All they had to do was walk forward inlane.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because those rich smugglers and land speculators were going to miss an opportunity to make a shitload more money if the government carried on reducing the tax on tea and preventing further settlement west.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The USA technically was waiting, a minority of liberal revolutionaries were able to upend the social order by inviting the French to intervene.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because their rights as Englishmen were being violated, and they had the power and foreign backing to launch a successful revolt. No reason not to try.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      And what English “rights” were being violated?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        the right to evade taxes

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >"AMERICAN" ENFIELD
    Worst timeline

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Free men don’t ask permission

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *