Howdy, folks,
As you know, I am a bit of a maverick intellectually. My 1861-65 analysis is well off of the main stream, for example.
I suspect that American independence was not particularly desirable nor historically necessary. The problem really rested with the Georges, the Hanoverian kings of Britain, though you will have to take my word for this, since there are about fifty PhD thesis here, as yet unwritten! Big time not PC!
Have to add in the Whig magnates, the big landowners who started and ran what we call the Industrial Revolution. They were more at fault than George III, taken as a group and over time.
Anyway, a gentler hand on the Colonies would have forestalled the whole affair, and the real Kings of Britain and America wold have been up to the task (surely it is unneeded that I name the real King? Well, for a hint, his family name is Stuart. Stuart comes from "steward". The family are the hereditary Stewards of Scotland, and Stewards to the great King Robert the Bruce. The family traces their ancestry to King Robert's daughter, his sole surviving child. And a lot farther back.) The War of Independence took shape between 1756 (French and Indian War) and 1776, a mere twenty years.
Think how things would have turned out! Adams would have been tried at the Old Bailey, and hung. Franklin would have been a Tory.
Could have been, could have been. No World War I or II, no Bolsheviki, no nuclear weapons. Different world, for sure.
Bet you folks did not realize that I am a Monarchist, hey? Sure enough am. Would have settled for General Washington, would prefer President Bush. Am not kidding in the slightest.
Morning Iris7.
Interesting. From reading about the background to the Revolution, I realize how much of a close thing it was.
Anyway, a gentler hand on the Colonies would have forestalled the whole affair
I agree with you there, it may not have forestalled it forever and it wouldn't have stopped men like Adams from trying, but there may have been no public support for independance at that time.