I think it's hugely significant that there was not just one colony seeking independence, but thirteen. When they became independent of England, there was no one central power, thus no "new boss, same as the old boss."
But that was then, this is now. Today's Washington DC makes me wonder if we wouldn't have been better off under George III
Some argue that Massachusetts and the rest of New England dragged the other colonies into the active conflict; credible on its face, but the spirit of independence was already present elsewhere.
Indeed: slavery abolished in 1837? I don't think the Southern states would have tolerated that. The ensuing mess would not have been pretty...and might have worked without Northern American industrialization, forbidden by George III and the Orders in Council.
I think it's hugely significant that there was not just one colony seeking independence, but thirteen. When they became independent of England, there was no one central power, thus no "new boss, same as the old boss."
But that was then, this is now. Today's Washington DC makes me wonder if we wouldn't have been better off under George III
Some argue that Massachusetts and the rest of New England dragged the other colonies into the active conflict; credible on its face, but the spirit of independence was already present elsewhere.
Indeed: slavery abolished in 1837? I don't think the Southern states would have tolerated that. The ensuing mess would not have been pretty...and might have worked without Northern American industrialization, forbidden by George III and the Orders in Council.