Was the outcome of the US 'War of Independence' the greatest disaster of the last 500 years?

[Snsl153]

It was a war that occurred because a small, elite group of extremely wealthy slaveholders didn't want to pay any tax. The success of the 'War of Independence' eventually led directly to other attempts to destroy the established order, like the French Revolution and the tyranny of Napoleon in France. It also led, either directly or indirectly, to the near extermination of the natives of the North American continent, to the Napoleonic Wars, the disgustingly racist and imperialist doctrine of 'Manifest Destiny', the European revolutions of 1848 (which gave us the 'Communist Manifesto', among other abhorrent tracts), and from there on things just got worse (ex. Lenin, Hitler).

Yes.

No.

Don't know.

Don't care.

Updates

1 y

Apart from the claim that is made within the first sentence here (which is reasonably accurate, if simplistic), all else that I have outlined here is of course speculative, but nevertheless plausible. No one knows for sure what would have occurred, how history would have unfolded if the American Revolution had failed, so don't take this too seriously (and I do extend the sequence of events a little too far towards the end).

Updates

1 y

However, a case can be made that the 'War of Independence' set off a sequence of events that would prove to be disastrous for mankind.

[purplepoppy]

Britain had been at war with France almost continuously since the Middle ages and there was rarely more than a few years peace between conflict. The US war of independence was never more than a tiny insignificant fraction of the Anglo French wars and had little support in Britain outside of the upper classes. Letters to newspapers at the time show most were more concerned with loss of trade links.

No matter how it ended the result would have been the same. The resources poured into fighting thousands of miles away could now be directed to wars closer to home. Napoleon would still have arose and history played out.

[Snsl153]

Yes, all of this is true, but my basic point was that the success of the American Revolution was the blueprint (and catalyst) for all, or at least most, of the other revolutions that followed, both the ones that succeeded and the ones that failed.

[purplepoppy]

I doubt it. Most old countries already had a long history of war both civil and with neighbours to draw inspiration from. War at the time was little more than a game played by nobility using peasants as pawns.

[RealMarek]

The French Revolution had very different philosophical underpinnings than the American Revolution. The American Revolution was really part of an internal dispute within England between the whigs and tories, and would not have succeeded without tacit political support in England that restrained the UK’s response. The French Revolution was motivated by much more radical continental (as opposed to English) philosophers. So it is best to say that the French Revolution did not start because of the American Revolution or originate from it in any way.

[HSalenko]

Consider for a brief moment that human expansion by all counts was inevitable. The early to mid 20th century was fraught with various dictatorships, some which continue to this day, and otherwise there were superpower-like nations that existed since ancient times under the name of "empire." The Romans controlled the known world, the Huns controlled serious territory, etc. This is in no way directly hinged on one human event when humanity has always been prone to this kind of behavior.

[Rangers]

Actually it happened because people were tired of the king's nonsense and wanted to start over in a new part of the world and build everything from the ground up.

But he continued sending troops to go and destroy their food supplies, tax them, radically expand the powers of the government while leaving Colonials out of the conversation, and they wanted to end slavery but the king wouldn't allow them to do that.

Things escalated further and further until a confrontation occurred between Colonials and British troops as they were on their way to continue burning and pillaging the land of Colonials. Some British troops fired upon Colonials and finally, one fired back.

That started the war that led to the greatest country on earth being formed

[Avicenna]

That's wrong. The reason why the Revolutionary War happened is that in 1763 the British banned colonists from going past the Appalachians for land. The Revolution was not about taxes.

The French Revolution was inspired to a minor extent by the American Revolution, but the rest of what was posted is false.

[slatyb]

That is true of some of the early settlers. The Plymouth Bay settlers came seeking religions freedom.

It was indeed a disaster for the aboriginal peoples of North America, and for the millions of Africans enslaved.

[jshm2]

America hasn't been around for 500 years, dumbass.

[Snsl153]

"America" actually did exist 500 years ago; it has, in fact, existed for millions of years now, because it is actually two continents (North and South) and not a nation dumbass, and yes, I know that the United States of America didn't exist 500 years ago dumbass, but my choice of the year 1522 as the starting point was entirely random, and believe it or not there actually were people in the Americas back then (ex. the Aztec, Mayan, and Inca civilisatons). 500 is a nice, round number dumbass, and that's why I chose it. Oh, and did I mention you were a dumbass?
(sigh) If you're going to troll, you're going to have to make more of an effort.

[AviatorTom]

Your first sentence us historically totally incorrect, so the rest if your rant doesn't deserve a comment.

[Snsl153]

Oh really? Incorrect? How and why is the first claim incorrect? As for the rest of my "rant" (which it clearly isn't), it of course isn't possible to actually KNOW how history would have unfolded, and I do realise it's speculative at best.

[AviatorTom]

@snsl153 The main driving force for the American Revolution came from New England, where slavery didn't exist. Southerners, where slavery existed, for the most part, supported the King. You are partially correct in that merchants were upset over paying unreasonable taxes, but so were the average people, since they were paying higher prices because of the tax. That was only part of the story, though... the colonists wanted more freedoms to govern themselves, and when the British used force (look up Boston Massacre), the colonists revolted. All of that started in New England.

[Snsl153]

"... New England, where slavery didn't exist" - Hmm, well...
According to this source: www.battlefields.org/.../founding-fathers-views-slavery
"Slavery existed, and was protected by law, in all 13 American colonies when they declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776."
In any case, in my original statement I clearly have in mind the so-called Founding Fathers, who certainly did own slaves.
"Many of the major Founding Fathers owned numerous slaves, such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. Others owned only a few slaves, such as Benjamin Franklin. And still others married into large slave-owning families, such as Alexander Hamilton."

[AviatorTom]

@snsl153 During the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, many of the colonial delegates were against slavery, and tried to get that written into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, but the Carolinas in the South would not agree to that, and without a unanimous declaration, the colonies would have never declared independence. So, a compromise was reached, masterminded by Benjamin Franklin, that allowed the United States of America to be established.

Yes, the Constitution allowed slavery (part of the compromise), but local laws, especially in the northern states, outlawed slavery. The "Founding Fathers" you mention were almost all from the South. Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton had black servants, but they were free, not slaves.

[WhiteBoyChill]

It was the greatest success story of the past 500 years. Revolting against an oppressive authority that didn’t give a shit about you.

Not to mention the millions of people who were able to find jobs and opportunities, and build better lives for themselves here, including to this day.

[Anonymous]

Largely a continuation of the English civil war and a lot of other factors. A lot of the wealthy elites were the descendants of the Dutch, French, Scots, spainish, Irish etc

[Cubus]

Springtime of nations was a series of uprisings based on nationalism - nations that were occupied wanted to regain independance. And communism manifesto was everything but nationalism.

[Anonymous]

Oh boy. Another Lefty is here to tell us all about how evil White men are.

[KostasKouvalis]

No, I think the outcome of the Civil War was

[Snsl153]

You wanted the South to win?

[KostasKouvalis]

Yeah

[Snsl153]

Why? Do you actually like the idea of keeping slaves? Do you support slavery? That's what the Confederacy fought for, it's what the war was all about, and before you say, "No, it was fought over states' rights", do keep in mind that the right to own slaves was one of the issues those who supported the institution of slavery wanted the states to retain.

[WhiteBoyChill]

@snsl153 So let me ask you this, how familiar are you really with American blacks?

You can pretend to know them well all you want but the fact of the matter is, they have been creating problems for the rest of us

[KostasKouvalis]

@WhiteBoyChill It's not just America. Pretty much every place where Blacks have been given too much political power experience the same problems. Black people just don't have the mindset needed to properly rule over a society. They hate the idea of being ruled by someone else, but the reality is that Black people are completely incompetent when they don't have White people holding their hand.
They've contributed a lot to pop culture and athletics, but when it comes to self governance, they fail on every level. They don't have any drive to achieve something on their own. They just want everything handed to them.
There's a reason the only prosperous and developed Black islands are the ones that chose to remain colonies of European countries.

[KostasKouvalis]

Even one Black guy commented that he was the only Black guy in an all White community and there were never any problems, until the city council decided the neighborhood wasn't diverse enough, and basically just dumped a bunch of Black people and they ended up completely trashing place.

[WhiteBoyChill]

@KostasKouvalis I mean, I’ve heard from African and black Carribean immigrants before, and a lot of them have openly expressed being grateful to get away from all the other black people in their home countries, because they have a different mindset and mentality than the people they grew up around.

[KostasKouvalis]

@WhiteBoyChill That's partially true, but a lot of Caribbean and African blacks also don't like American blacks, mainly because of their wokeness and how they raise their children

[WhiteBoyChill]

So Carribean and African blacks are still better in a sense than American blacks?

[KostasKouvalis]

@WhiteBoyChill SOME.

[Anonymous]

The world would be a better place if the brits slaughtered all the americans in the revolutionary war.

[Rangers]

Nah, without us, you'd have nobody to spend trillions of dollars defending you and doing 100% of medical and technological advancements that have happened in the past 70 years!

[WhiteBoyChill]

Lol! This is laughable! Someone’s just angry their country is no relevant because a bunch of disloyal subjects kicked their asses! 😆

[jimmy2]

War 2 was started by an assassin of one guy in Europe

[Snsl153]

You're thinking of World War One, not Two.

[bean2k21]

The greatest disaster was that after Americans invented the Internet and social media, we allowed a bunch of fuckwits to create user accounts.

[Snsl153]

Actually, wasn't it the British who invented the internet, back in 1991? Tim Berners-Lee was his name.

[bean2k21]

So you think one guy was sitting in his office inventing the Internet. Are you seriously retarded?

[bean2k21]

Here's an article you probably won't understand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

[Snsl153]

Why are you being so bloody rude? "Probably won't understand" Really? Are you sure about that? A stupid WIKIPEDIA page? You're the one who is retarded here if you think that Wikipedia is a reliable source for ANYTHING at all! What an absolute clown you are.

[caring__1]

Actually, the first Internet connection occurred while I was a student at UCLA in 1969.
In an office in Boelter Hall, on October 29, 1969, the Internet was born. Professor Leonard Kleinrock at UCLA sent the first message to Stanford. The entire message would have been “LOGIN,” however, Stanford's system crashed after only the first two letters were sent. Thus, the first Internet message was “LO.”
100.ucla.edu/.../the-internets-first-message-sent-from-ucla

[bean2k21]

@snsl153 Because no one is this misinformed. You are intentionally spreading hate speech about America and you know it.

[NathanDavis]

this is quite the stretch... lol

[Snsl153]

Maybe.

[msc545]

Very much so, yes

[landingout2]

who knows if that history is even true