Faulty reasoning signals

• Confirmation Bias - 2.2% (64 hits)
• Anchoring Bias - 2% (58 hits)
• Availability Heuristic - 5.4% (161 hits)
• Representativeness Heuristic - 4.1% (123 hits)
• Hindsight Bias - 3.4% (100 hits)
• Overconfidence Bias - 11.4% (338 hits)
• Framing Effect - 1.2% (35 hits)
• Loss Aversion - 0.8% (25 hits)
• Status Quo Bias - 1.9% (57 hits)
• Sunk Cost Effect - 0%
• Optimism Bias - 6.8% (201 hits)
• Pessimism Bias - 1.6% (47 hits)

Article text

What if America Lost the Revolutionary War?

250 Years of Alternate History

When General George Washington successfully surprised the Hessians in December 1776 and won the Battle of Trenton, he set off a momentum shift that ultimately led to America celebrating its 250th anniversary of independence.

But what if Washington had not been successful after crossing the Delaware River?

What if the colonies lost the war and the Declaration of Independence turned out to be just a piece of paper documenting a pipe dream?

Our world today would look very different if America didn’t gain its independence when it did, according to top historians.

But in an alternate universe, where Britain won the Revolutionary War, some aspects of our daily lives might look very similar.

“You had guys like Benjamin Franklin, you know, the <em>Poor Richard, ‘</em>Time is money,’ coming from him early on.

And that is distinctly American, I think, in many ways,” Nathaniel Philbrick, a historian and finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, told <em>Newsweek</em>.

“So, I think there would have still been that kind of spirit.”

When it comes to history, playing the “what if” game of an alternate reality is easier said than done.

There is the whole butterfly effect of changing even the smallest of revolutionary results, and historians that <em>Newsweek </em>spoke to all pointed out that they are not in the business of counterfactuals and said there’s no real way to know what the world would look like if America had lost the war.

But one of the big questions about how different our world could actually look hinges on when and if the colonies would ultimately gain their independence, if not in 1776.

The British Empire has changed significantly since 1776.

Australia gained its nationhood in 1901, Canada reached full legislative independence in 1931, and&nbsp;India and Pakistan followed in 1947.

More than a dozen British territories have gained independence since America first declared it wanted to break away.

So, even if America had not won the Revolutionary War, most historians believe that America would have still gained independence at some point before 2026. &nbsp;

“The fact that the former colonies, the United States, occupies the richest land on the planet, it's going to continue to be attractive to European immigrants and that the population of the United States will start to outgrow that of England, [and] will eventually put pressure on England to acknowledge that...an island cannot rule a continent,” Joseph Ellis, a Pulitzer Prize winning historian told <em>Newsweek</em>.

If America had gained independence after 1776, one major difference we could see in 2026 could be in the map of what is known as the “United States.”&nbsp;

Changing America's Map

Winning the Revolutionary War put America on a fast path to expanding its territory, with the immediate inclusion of territory westward to the Mississippi River.

Shortly after the war, in 1803, the United States doubled its territory with the landmark Louisiana Purchase orchestrated by President Thomas Jefferson, buying land that would eventually become Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska; most of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and Minnesota; and parts of Texas and New Mexico.

America then acquired Florida in 1819, Texas in 1845, and Oregon in 1846.

The current U.S. map was completed in 1853 with the Gadsden Purchase, adding land in Arizona and New Mexico. &nbsp;

One of the most logical assumptions about the differences in the world if America had lost the Revolutionary War is that the map would likely look very different from what it does today.

Of course, the “united” part of the United States could be nonexistent, and the map could feature a patchwork of French, Spanish, British, and even Russian territories. &nbsp;

Before the war, Russia, under Empress Catherine the Great, had sent explorers to start colonizing Alaska and, in 1784, established the colony of Russia America.

It also included Fort Ross in California.

Serena Zabin, a historian and award-winning author, told <em>Newsweek </em>it’s conceivable that Russia would have expanded its territory in North America had the U.S. revolution gone differently, making it an even larger superpower. &nbsp;

“I think they wouldn't have given it up,” Zabin said of the Russian moves in the western part of North America.

“We could imagine a world in which the whole West Coast was Russian.” &nbsp;

Zabin added that the Spanish and French likely would have retained their territories, with the Spanish holding Florida and Texas keeping Mexico because the British, she said, “would not have been interested” in a war with Mexico.

Before the Revolutionary War, explorers were coming to America looking for “free land” out west, according to Philbrick, and it’s possible that expansion couldn’t have been stopped.&nbsp;&nbsp;

“I think if we had remained part of England, that would have been a ticking time bomb of some kind,” Philbrick said. &nbsp;

Most historians generally agreed that the Spanish and French would have likely retained control of their territories and possibly expanded.

It’s also possible that Native nations would have remained sovereign longer than they were able to after the British loss.

Major Native American tribes sided with the British in the Revolutionary War in the hope that British rule could halt colonial expansion into their territory.

Major tribes like the Mohawk, Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, and Cherokee supported the British and Mohawk leader Joseph Brant commanded British troops against the colonies.

Kathleen Duval, a historian and Pulitzer Prize winner, told <em>Newsweek </em>that it’s possible that Native nations would still exist west of the Mississippi River had the Revolutionary War gone to the British. &nbsp;

This may have been particularly different for the Iroquois, according to Philbrick, who said the tribe was \"decimated\" during the revolution after aligning with Britain.

Had England won, they \"would have come out more powerful.

\"

Ellis agreed that America losing the war would have slowed the displacement of Native Americans, but he took a different position from other historians concerning the map.

Instead of other countries keeping territories and expanding, Ellis told <em>Newsweek </em>that the expansion of the colonies was likely inevitable.

Spain, he said, was a “dying European empire” that wouldn’t have had the power to resist expansion. &nbsp;

“There’s a kind of inevitability to American expansion, whether or not we’re technically still part of the British Empire,” Ellis said.&nbsp;

When Would Slavery End?

While Ellis was confident that American expansion would take place regardless of the outcome of the Revolutionary War, the issue of slavery was a little more unpredictable for him.

During the war, Britain used emancipation as an incentive to slaves who fled their masters and fought for the British crown, and Britain abolished slavery about 30 years before America did.

It abolished the slave trade more than 25 years before that, in 1807, though it did not free those already enslaved.

Had the British won the Revolutionary War, Ellis argued that the British may have tried to impose emancipation on the colonies earlier, which could have led to slaves being emancipated earlier in the northern states.

Though this could have created a Civil War between the southern states and England, one that Ellis isn’t confident Great Britain would have won.

“I think it would have been a difficult victory for Britain because the white population of the southern states was wholly committed to preserving slavery,” Ellis said.

“What would have been crucial is what would the northern states have done?

[Would] they protect the southern states?”

&nbsp;

Philbrick was torn over whether England would have moved to end slavery after the war, but said that such a move could have prevented the invention of the cotton gin.

Patented in 1794 by Eli Whitney, the gin changed the course of American history, giving plantation owners a way to make cotton growing profitable.

At the time, tobacco products were struggling with declining profits, and the invention of the cotton gin doubled the yield of raw cotton for decades.

By 1850, America was growing 75 percent of the world’s supply of cotton, and it revolutionized the global textile industry. &nbsp;

Part of the reason England was able to end slavery was because of changes to its political system, particularly with the First Reform Act, which cut power from powerful interests connected to slave economies in the Caribbean.

Had America lost the revolution, the colonies would have gained seats in Parliament.

Jack Rakove, a historian and Pulitzer Prize winner, said southern states, like Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia would likely have had significant economic and political weight.

So, passing the First Reform Act may have become more difficult and the pro-slavery contingent may have gained more support in England if America lost the revolution.&nbsp;

Philbrick called the question a “good argument,” and added that had key Founding Fathers not been tried for treason, it’s possible Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and James Madison, three big slaveholders, could have had seats in Parliament. &nbsp;

“I think there’s a real good argument that it could have changed the fate of England and slavery,” Philbrick said. &nbsp;

The Changing of America's Sports

Those arguing for equal rights for Black people were not arguing about just ending slavery.

Ultimately, much of the culture of America could have looked differently had the colonies lost the Revolutionary War.

This includes the integration of sports.

The first Black person to fight for a heavyweight championship didn’t happen until 1908 as white boxers prevented Black athletes from challenging for world titles.

In 1908, Jack Johnson, an American, defeated Canadian World Champion Tommy Burns in Sydney, Australia.

The first fight featuring Johnson as champion in the U.S. did not take place until 1810, in Reno, Nevada.

Black's had integrated into several sports in the world before this.

In 1881, Andrew Watson played soccer for the Scotland National Team and is widely recognized as the first to cross the color barrier in the world's most popular sport.

Tom Molineaux fought in high-profile bare-knuckle fights in England in 1810. &nbsp;Molineux, according to some historians, may have been born into slavery in Virginia.

He had a notable career in boxing after moving to England and competed for championships 100 years before other Black fighters did the same on U.S. soil. &nbsp;

In 1886, Peter Jackson won the Australian heavyweight championship and later won a championship in England.

But when he came to the United States, world champion John L.

Sullivan refused to fight him for the title. &nbsp;

"Black fighters, Black athletes, Black people in general would go over to Europe or France and talk about how much, how they're treated better, than they are in America,” Louis Moore, a historian specializing in race and sports, said.

“So I think there's an opportunity for integration to happen earlier in sports.”

On the flip side of the argument, Moore said it’s possible that if the colonies were part of England, there would have been pushback to athletes like Molineaux because it’s “different when they’re not part of who you are.” &nbsp;

While sports in the United States have often offered children a chance to dream and, for athletes who may not be able to afford college expenses, the chance to get a higher education, Moore told <em>Newsweek </em>that America losing the revolution could have made the pipeline to becoming a professional athlete easier.

Instead of playing in college and then potentially becoming a professional, Moore said that sports like basketball and football could now be constructed more similarly to European soccer, which are made up of several divisions and levels.

“I think sports would still be a way out for many people because those who are marginalized class-wise are going to give up their body to make money,” Moore said.

“You’re 17, 18 and you’re getting paid to play versus going to school.

And that just creates more opportunities financially.”

In a world where the U.S. didn't gain independence in the 18th Century, Randy Robert, a sports historian and Pulitzer Prize nominee, still believes we’d have basketball, baseball and football because the adaptation of sports is something that many British territories have done.

He pointed to Canada’s main sport being hockey as evidence. &nbsp;

“Cricket became a support of the upper classes, very upper classes.

And then it kind of dies out.

But the sport of the masses became baseball,” Robert said.

“I like to think that we, as Americans, that we improved the games that England played and the other countries played.”&nbsp;

Moore said that while America might still have basketball had the revolution gone differently, it is certainly possible that New York wouldn’t have just celebrated an NBA championship. &nbsp;

“OG maybe wouldn’t play for the Knicks,” Moore said, speaking of NBA Finals hero OG Anunoby.

“Maybe being born in London and being from Nigeria, maybe stuff works out differently.

Maybe he doesn’t come to America.” &nbsp;

Anunoby was born in London and came to the United States with his dad.

They moved to Missouri to be with family, and if America hadn’t won the revolution, historians largely agree the Louisiana Purchase probably wouldn’t have happened.

So, Missouri would have likely remained French territory. &nbsp;

Of course, a lot happens between the American Revolution and the Knicks winning the championship.

But if Anunoby doesn’t come to the United States and doesn’t play for the Knicks, he won’t be there to tip in the winning shot in Game 4 of the NBA Finals to complete one of the greatest comebacks in American sports history. &nbsp;

When Would Women Get the Right to Vote

While slavery and the integration of sports may have changed if America lost the Revolutionary War, many historians largely don’t see a huge change in women’s rights.

Both Moore and Robert noted that women were already playing at tennis at Wimbledon and golfing, so there’s no reason to believe that women’s sports would look very different today. &nbsp;

The timeline for women getting the right to vote probably would have taken a similar course, as well.

The 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920, giving women the right to vote in the U.S.

Duval noted that the Founding Fathers “really did nothing to improve women’s rights,” and they maintained British common law regarding marriage and women’s lack of rights.

Some say it is possible that women would not have gained the right to vote until slightly later.

Ellis said the women’s rights movement seemed to have more momentum in the United States and Zabin said women in Great Britain looked to women in the United States in terms of suffrage.

“Britain has its own women’s rights movement, but they both pull on that language of the Declaration of Independence, which I think would not have been nearly as compelling if it hadn’t worked,” Zabin said. &nbsp;

An American Icon Disappears

Zabin thinks one of the big differences in our world if America lost the revolution may have been the loss of the \"idea of convenience\" in America. &nbsp;

“I think that the immense distance between things in the U.S. really does make for a commitment to this idea of convenience,” Zabin said. &nbsp;

Drive-throughs are a uniquely American invention by fast food companies to make picking up meals more convenient.

While drive-throughs are synonymous with McDonald’s, the company wasn’t actually the first to deploy the method of serving food.

It opened its first drive-through specifically to serve military personnel.

In Arizona, military personnel weren’t allowed to leave their cars in uniform, meaning they couldn’t go into a restaurant to get food.

So, McDonald’s added the drive-through feature to its Sierra Vista restaurant to give the military a way to eat without breaking military rules.

Part of the invention of the drive-through is credited to a post-WWII culture that fostered the expansion of the suburbs, meaning more people needed cars and were not relying on public transportation.

Although drive-throughs are now seen globally, England didn’t get its first one until 1986, largely because cities were built more for walking than driving and people weren’t as reliant on cars.

Had America lost the revolution, it’s possible people could have remained more heavily concentrated in cities, making this modern convenience less necessary. &nbsp;

When Americans travel abroad, they sometimes remark that they are surprised at how different the basics of grocery shopping are in other countries.

Unlike stores in the United States that are massive and are meant for one-stop shopping to make it convenient, stores in the U.K. and Europe tend to be smaller and have far more restricted hours than a lot of stores in the U.S. that stay open late or even 24 hours a day. &nbsp;&nbsp;

“We're used to just sort of moving into a territory and making everything convenient, accessible and big,” Philbrick said.&nbsp;“In&nbsp;Europe, where you have a much more concentrated population, you get a much more refined and careful use of resources, and you just don't have this kind of excess that has become part of who we are.”&nbsp;

Along with convenience, Duval noted that at the time of the revolution British law actually banned industrialization in the colonies.

So, she said none of the development of the early United States would have been possible without America winning the revolution.

A Different World

Ultimately, there's no way to know what would have happened if America lost the revolution, though the world would surely be a different place.

Sure, the U.S. would have likely gained independence at some point, but with a different timeline, the entirety of world history could look very different.

Sports, Civil Rights, business, superpowers, and World Wars all could have—and likely would have—played out differently.

There are likely a lot of similarities in that world as well, just the road to get there would have featured some different turns along the way.

<em>Contact Newsweek editors on this story: <a href="mailto:g.rowland@newsweek.com">Geoffrey Rowland</a></em>