I’m not sure lack of French support would have made a difference with how we understand America today assuming the Americans had still won, but had the British won, frankly, I think the US would have been better off in many respects.
>>> but had the British won, frankly, I think the US would have been better off in many respects.
Hard disagree here, I am from a former british colony, where the laws etc are still inspired by the british. The American constitution and political and legal system with its checks and balances is outright better than the british system. Of course its not perfect, but its still miles better. So its good that the rebels won and the british lost.
I dunno, American system seems to be in capture by minority party and also has track record of disenfranchising large part of population. Plus, juridical system underperformed in Amrica, due to very little checks or balances on cops and prosecutors. They also imprison impressive amount of population.
Globally, countries with presidential systems are much more likely to devolve into dictatorships than those with british-inspired parliamentary systems.
There's pros and cons to each system of course. The American "checks and balances" results in complete inability to act a lot of the time. See the frequent budget shutdowns, or compare and contrast the ability to legislate for issues like "maniacs are shooting up our schools".
The downside of course is that the great "freedom of action" of a british government can result in self harming or ill considered policies being rail roaded through. See something like brexit: it is doubtful that many countries with "checks and balances" would be able to muster the political will and broad agreement to do it in the first place. But a british government can just go YOLO.
I think a parliamentary system is better despite this because it puts the establishment in control. To become PM, you have to climb to the top of a party first (which requires many years of dedication). Some war hero, billionaire, or other radical can't just waltz into the position from nowhere. And then a PM is at all times beholden to the support of their party, which can be removed at any time if they turn out to be an idiot (see truss - nobody had to put up with her for 4 years).
The danger in britain is the move to more "democracy" in choosing PMs. If it were left to the establishment (ie MPs) things are more boring. But when it is "democratised" to party members that's when the crazies come in - the corbyns and trusses. This is an unfortunate decline of elite control in Britain which hopefully will be rolled back now that everyone has seen the unintended consequences.
The US would not have been anywhere near as successful financially and its population size would probably only have been a fraction of what it is today.
(incidentally, I find the timing of the Monroe Doctrine slightly suspicious, coming as it does from a slave-holding President a few years after the Vienna Convention includes an agreement [as moral imperative] to abolish the slave trade)
Not a chance. You can simply look at Canada and Australia to see how it might have played out... It's a difference in culture and attitude but we (Can & Aus) don't innovate, don't create, don't have the "American Dream" and in Canada we're getting dragged along by the US but still far worse on almost every economic metric.
