All you had to do was give us representation in your parliament and the British Empire would still be alive and well today, a hyperpower no one could ever compete with.
If America had representation they would soon have had a permanent majority in the Commons and we'd be ruled directly by American politicians. I'm glad THAT didn't happen.
BTW you still don't have representation, US citizens in DC have no voting representation in Congress despite being taxed by the federal government. It's hilarious. The thing you supposedly rebelled over. You literally gave yourself taxation without representation. Can't make this shit up.
>>53122531
>If America had representation they would soon have had a permanent majority
Why? Couldn't we just make big constituencies, so less MPs?
>>53122287
It hadn't even started yet at that stage. They went on and became much more wealthy and powerful.
They actually begin to go into decline after we beat them and left the UK.
America still fought the UK's wars like a good colony tbhfam.
The UK holding onto the 13 colonies probably would have meant that they didn't become as relevant as they are today. The British weren't as eager about expanding west and stuff because they didn't want to upset their native allies who they needed against the French and stuff. If the 13 colonies never gained independence, and France held onto their north American territory as well, we'd probably just be another ex British colony like Canada and Australia today.
>>53122641
It's impossible to say really but the UK probably could have taken France's lands in North America after defeating Napoleon anyway
>>53122588
>Why?
Population. It didn't take long for the population of the 13 Colonies to near the population of Britain. It wasn't long before Americans were much more populous than Brits.
>Couldn't we just make big constituencies, so less MPs?
But that's not equal representation, which is what they would eventually demand. Constituencies must all be roughly the same size. And with every passing year, as their population increases, it's easier for them to leave the empire.
Our choice was: be governed by a permanent majority of American politicians, or say goodbye
>>53122287
No way, they gave up on you in favour of a fairer and more beautiful land and people.
ie. Australia.
after giving up on the naughty child, they actually expanded to the largest they've ever been.
They collapsed after WW2 when every shithole wanted self-representation.
>>53122287
but it didn't fall? it only became bigger after you left?
in fact whilst the US was fighting for independence the main concern was to make sure we didn't lose the caribbean or India, which were far more important colonies?
>>53122622
>beat
>still doesn't have their whole island
top jej
>>53122744
>more beautiful people
>>53122641
>The British weren't as eager about expanding west and stuff because they didn't want to upset their native allies who they needed against the French and stuff
It was more so that inland states would be more difficult to trade with, offering little benefit to them.
>>53122783
https://www.instagram.com/mirandakerr/?hl=en
>>53122793
Which is partially why they didn't want to alienate their native allies by expanding west. They benefitted more from having good relations with them (trade + help against the French) than trying to conquer them when they really didn't care about the land.
>>53122871
>they didn't want to alienate their native allies by expanding west
They got jack shit from the Natives in the American west. They could get all the beaver pelts they needed in Canada.
Expanding west would just help the independence of the colonies. A inland city would be immune to a naval bombardment, or invasion, Britain two biggest strengths. Being farther removed from trade routes would naturally become more self reliant.
It wasn't until the railroad that they started caring about parts of Canada that couldn't be reached by boat.
>>53122622
>They actually begin to go into decline after we beat them and left the UK.
I think our decline began much earlier, around ~1880 or so. We peaked in 1860/70. And from the end of the 19th century we experienced a long decline, accelerated by each world war, until we reached our nadir in the 1970s.
Since 1980 we have slowly been getting stronger again, although you have to look at the economic data and military changes carefully to notice the trend.
>>53123138
I'm not talking about the American West, I'm literally talking about what was immediately west of borders of the 13 colonies.
![in~bu[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/MfiRLey.gif "in~bu[1].gif")
>>53123206
>>53122622
In fact if I may indulge in some autism....
Imperial Peak: 1876, when Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India
Weakest point: 1976, when the British government was forced to get a loan from the IMF due to the economy dying
There you have *exactly* 100 years of decline marked by two important moments in British history.
13 colonies independence was purely driven by American colonial businessmen who weren't fans of having to play nice with the natives and instead wanted more land. The widespread independence movements that came later in places like Canada, Aus and NZ were a result of local politicians wanting greater power
>>53123676
>colonial businessmen
aka the jews
>>53122697
We took the French lands in North America during the 7 Years War
