Professor Andrew Roberts, historian, journalist and author of George III: The Life and Reign of Britain\u2019s Most Misunderstood Monarch<\/em>, envisages a different scenario, however, where many Americans happily remained under British rule.\u201cYou have to remember that about one-third of Americans were Loyalists and about one-third were sitting on the fence waiting to see which side won,\u201d he says. \u201cIf the British had won an early and decisive victory, then those on the Loyalist side would have represented a majority.\u201d<\/p>\n The 13 colonies still being within the British empire<\/a> means a powerful union of English-speaking peoples could have emerged, with America the dominant partner, claims Roberts. \u201cYou could have had the Hanoverians moving out to New York after recognising that America was going to be the most powerful country in the world \u2013 there would have been no reason to stay in London. The British would have become a kind of adjunct to America.\u201d<\/p>\n This would have all obviously depended on Britain winning the war, but it had many opportunities to do so. If the British had captured George Washington<\/a> as he attempted to evacuate his forces from New York, to name one, or if the British general Sir William Howe had not launched his own expedition to seize Philadelphia and so doom his comrade John Burgoyne to a major defeat at Saratoga, to name another, then the war could have been won.<\/p>\n After their triumph, George III<\/a> and his government would have then had two options: meting out harsh punishments on the defeated rebels, or conciliation. Roberts favours the latter scenario, claiming that any surrender would have been based on extremely generous terms. \u201cThe British didn\u2019t want this war in the first place, and by 1778 they were making huge offers: essentially, no taxation without representation; colonial representation in the House of Commons; or a form of dominion status of self-government.\u201d With such a peace, any American attempt to renew the war would have been averted.<\/p>\n \u201cI wouldn\u2019t be surprised if people in Whitehall had come up with a condominium system whereby Americans were self-governing with a central parliament, similar to what was starting in Canada and would later be seen in Australia and New Zealand,\u201d says Roberts. \u201cThere were already people doing that kind of thinking, including Benjamin Franklin before the war.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p><\/div> <\/section> So, instead of a Congress at the Capitol and a president in the White House<\/a>, there could have been an American parliament in New York.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, George III, rather than being remembered as the \u201cmad king<\/a>\u201d, would be regarded as \u201cone of the greatest kings of England\u201d, states Roberts, having defeated a massive rebellion and then, through amelioration, brought the Americans back into the fold.<\/p>\n But how would the dominion have progressed? It is possible the westward expansion would have been slower without the deep-rooted belief in the US that it was their \u2018manifest destiny\u2019 to build a nation \u201cfrom sea to shining sea\u201d, although if we assume that the Americans still got rid of the royal proclamation of 1763, which forbade settlement beyond a line in the Allegheny Mountains, then not much would have changed. \u201cIt would have been terrible for the Native Americans, but then it was terrible for them anyway.\u201d<\/p>\n Of course, another oppressed people to consider are the enslaved Africans, and it is with regards to their lives that Roberts believes there could have been a significant difference. \u201cI think it would have been much better for the enslaved Africans to have stayed in the British empire,\u201d he adds. \u201cThe British abolished the slave trade in 1807 and slavery in 1833, whereas in the United States there were more than 700,000 people killed in a devastating civil war in the 1860s before slavery came to an end.\u201d<\/p>\n Still, the American dominion would have kept expanding and developing throughout the 19th century, much as the US did, before threatening to supersede Britain in power. Assuming the Americans continued to have political representation, then their larger populations would have meant that, through sheer numbers, they would have had a majority in the House of Commons. In fact, it is likely that the Anglo-American empire would have grown to such an extent that the course of the 20th century would have been radically different.<\/p>\n \u201cKaiser Wilhelm II, faced with an extraordinary empire covering Britain, America, Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand and more, might not have started a war in 1914,\u201d affirms Roberts. \u201cThat means you wouldn\u2019t have had the Bolshevik revolution and communism, or Hitler and the Nazis, and the millions of people who died in the world wars would have remained alive. The world would have been a happier place.\u201d<\/p>\n In 1775, the tensions between Britain and its 13 American colonies \u2013 dominated by the issues of political representation and taxation \u2013 snapped, resulting in the American Revolutionary War. Facing the superior British army and navy, as well as thousands of Loyalists, the \u2018Patriots\u2019 took up arms and declared independence to form the United States of America. By the 1780s, the French, Spanish and Dutch had joined their cause, turning the conflict into a world war and providing the vital support needed to pull off an unlikely victory.<\/p>\n It was a humiliation for the British and King George III. For the US, the battles, people and documents of the war are not just part of history, but are deeply entrenched in the national psyche. The fight for independence lionised names like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin; created icons such as the Stars and Stripes flag and Declaration of Independence<\/a>; and ultimately set the nation on a path to becoming a global superpower.<\/p>\n <\/p><\/div> <\/section> Andrew Roberts is a historian, journalist, broadcaster and author of George III: The Life and Reign of Britain\u2019s Most Misunderstood Monarch <\/em>(Penguin, 2021)<\/strong><\/p>\n This article was first published in the <\/em><\/strong>March 2022 edition of History Revealed<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\nA royal relocation<\/h3>\n
![\"""\"](\""https:\/\/images.immediate.co.uk\/production\/volatile\/sites\/7\/2022\/03\/GettyImages_113492099-55ada29-e1648468674268.jpg?quality=90&resize=568%2C413"\" "\\"\"\"\\"\/")
<\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture><\/div>More from our alternate history series<\/h4>\n
Early emancipation<\/h3>\n
In context: George III\u2019s \u2018loss\u2019 of the colonies<\/h4>\n