Are the USA the heirs of the UK and Holland?

[Julie4]

What I mean is that Holland and the UK were, in their respective eras, the dominant commercial, financial and maritime powers in the world, just like the US today, and they also share the Protestant tradition, and economic liberalism.

[RavVid]

I think you have a strong point.

For the UK I would point to William and Mary after the Glorious Revolution which ensconced Protestant tradition and introduced sober Dutch traditions into the UK which were built upon progressively over more than a century into the 1800's from 1689.

So I see the UK as the heirs of the Dutch after land wars ruined the Nederlands. The English Monarch transitioned to more of a Stadtholder. William and Mary did not have a problem with agreeing to supremacy of Parliament - ending absolutism of the Stuarts. The Bill of Rights (usually styled the English Bill of Rights which the US Bill of Rights incorporated exactly 100 years later) was a large part of this. All this was before the American Revolution and cannot but have had impact on what was to become the USA.

Before then there was the English Revolution and Oliver Cromwell. Don't forget there where Puritan colonies in the Americas corresponding and that period was still within living memory in 1776. An everyday American said to me that Oliver Cromwell was a very good bad example that their founding fathers would have been well aware of the need to avoid. It seems to me that Oliver Cromwell is sub text in the US constitution.

We cannot ignore the English Industrial Revolution either and it didn't take that long for the US to overtake Great Britain in the production of steel as per Rise and Fall.

While I see a broad sweep from Holland to UK to US it is only a broad sweep of influences on the US. There was direct Dutch influence and French influence. Over statement should be avoided on the inheritance the US has and it is more it's own creation. The US constitution being the prime example.

[NamerOfStars]

We were at one point; it's debatable exactly when London lost its status as the functional capital of the world, but it's pretty unambiguous that New York took it over. But now? I'd argue that it's fallen back, and no one's really stepped up to claim the title.

[Drewtate]

Probably. A lot of early republicans came from Britain to practice their religion freely away from the oppressive monarchies. Germans too.

[RyanEC]

I would agree to an extent.
More with the US being an heir to the UK due to the, Protestant Anglo Saxon population and economic liberalism.

[Julie4]

Culturally surely , I always say that Americans a se sont English with a larger territory. 😂

However, Holland was the first great port power, liberal, financial (they invented the stock exchange), maritime and commercial. From this point of view, the United Kingdom is the heir to these united provinces. Remember who became ruler of the United Kingdom after the glorious revolution?

[RyanEC]

I wasn’t thinking about king William and Mary. 🤔

[Julie4]

Yeah It was William III of Orange, who, before landing in England and becoming king, had been Stathouder of the United Provinces.

[RavVid]

I laughed at the first sentence.

And I agree with the second para. I would add that William transformed loans to gov'ts from being very dubious and doubtful bets on a sovereign's dreams of glory to be a secure asset that could be relied upon. That helped in the Napoleonic wars.

[Andres77]

Holland and the UK and France and Germany and Ireland and Italy…and then the rest of the world.

[exitseven]

Yes, but that happened 60 years ago.

[Jennz6]

Yes, I think so 🤷‍♀️

[msc545]

If you count weapons, yes.

[Kelly6]

Kind of yes