132 Alternative History Vol. 1–The Butterfly Effect: Britain's Victory in the American Revolution

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
all right fans, finally back with another
episode of the nailing historypodcast another installment, as
they say.
We can all blame john for thedelay in getting back to this,
so which I think most of ourfans would probably know anyway
I'll take.

Speaker 2 (00:37):
Uh, yeah, I'll take.
I'll take responsibility onthat one.
It's been a busy past few weeks, but I've been wanting to get
on the airwaves, matt, with you,it's just been tough.
It's been tough, got a lotgoing on, but I'm excited to be
back here.

Speaker 1 (00:54):
What do you have going on?
Work things.
Working so much you can't spendan hour to prep for a show, huh
.

Speaker 2 (01:13):
You know I've been working on it.
I've been trying to thinkoutside of the box on on ways
and new content we can bring youguys.

Speaker 1 (01:18):
So how's your uh uh 20 push-ups a day going?
Good, did some this morning soyou were able to stick with that
one, but not with the podcastresolution.

Speaker 2 (01:28):
What was our pot?
I've not been using chat GPT.
I think one of it was to justput more effort in Just period.
I'm not waiting so much ofMatt's money.
I think, as part of it, I wantto be conscientious of your time
, our fans' time, and realizethat it's got to be fun,

(01:51):
informative, and I do strive forthat.
I'm not trying to wasteanyone's time certainly not
yours but I think we got a goodone here today.

Speaker 4 (02:04):
I'm hoping so it's your show, take it away.

Speaker 2 (02:11):
I know the fans favorite episodes are the ones
that you host, so I haven't seenany recent polls on that
confirming or denying that, sono fan mail.
No fan mail.
Mm-mm.
Nothing, huh Dang.

(02:33):
Well, guys, we're here foranother week for you, and I was
cruising, are you?

Speaker 1 (02:44):
going to ask how I'm doing.

Speaker 2 (02:47):
How are you doing Good?
Are you excited to be back here?
Sure.

Speaker 1 (02:56):
I've been recently diagnosed with a condition
that's hopefully curable, butwhat is that?
Well, I haven't told, I haven'teven told most of my family,
and I think I don't think I'vetold you, so I don't know if I
necessarily want to share it onair okay, yeah, is that a true

(03:24):
story.
Yeah, okay, yeah, is that a truestory yeah, just uh hope
everyone has me in theirthoughts um okay, a couple weeks
ago, I'll give you a little bit, I'll tell I'll fine, I'll,
I'll, I'll, I'll bid it.

(03:45):
So, like two weeks ago, um, itwas a saturday and, um, I was
feeling a little tired, didn'treally want to do anything.
My, my calf's been hurting me,my leg, my calf, I hurt myself
running on valentine's day, sothat's like three weeks ago, and

(04:08):
I'm like man, this is taking along time to heal.
I don't know what's going on.
So I haven't been doinganything and, um, I decided I
think it was two saturdays ago Idecided to, um, get make an
appointment, um, at supercuts toget my haircut, um, which I

(04:29):
usually don't do because it'sjust like I don't like waiting
in line, blah, blah, blah.
But I've realized, recentlyrealized that there's an app
that you can like look to seehow long the wait is for getting
a haircut, and I thought that'spretty cool.
There's a Supercuts near me soI can kind of track it.
When the wait time goes down, Ican sign up whatever and check

(04:52):
in and head over there.
Not the best haircut, but it iswhat it is.
So 4.30, say, I scheduled anappointment to go over there.
I went over there and the ladywas being real mean to me the
whole time.
Sit up straight, put your headthis way.
She's being real mean.
Ouch, like what do you want?

(05:16):
I'm like a haircut.
She's like yeah Well, how doyou want it done?
Which I've said this before.
I hate that because I thinkit's her job to know how to cut
my hair personally.
But you know that's neitherhere nor there, like if I say I
want my haircut and I say I justwant it shorter.
However, you want to do it,they should be able to do
something.

Speaker 2 (05:37):
I think so.

Speaker 1 (05:39):
I don't know how you normally get it done so anyway.
So she's cutting me and thenall of a sudden, um, towards the
end of the cut, and, uh, shesays like hey, um, if you don't
mind me asking uh, how much?
What kind of shampoo do you use?
And I said head and shoulders,which I've been using head and

(06:02):
shoulders probably since college.
Ever since I started buyingshampoo for myself, I've been
using head and shoulders, whichI've been using head and
shoulders probably since college.
Ever since I started buyingshampoo for myself, I've been
using head and shoulders.
And she said, oh, she's likewell, I think it's doing more
damage than not because you havea bunch of dandruff.
That was a gut punch, I justdidn't know how to feel maybe

(06:38):
it's a.

Speaker 2 (06:38):
I think I might be having some right now if it
makes you feel any better.
I know, every time I tussle myhair every so often and I'm like
I don't know if that's justdust in the air or I got
dandruff going on.
I think it's just a part oflife I just don't.

Speaker 1 (06:54):
It makes you feel a little dirty and I don't
understand how I've been usinghead and shoulders.
And I'm a little skeptical,thinking that she may have been
trying to sell me on a $15bottle of shampoo which I bought

(07:15):
like a sucker, Because whatelse am I going to do?
The sales tactic of like youhave dandruff, you need this
shampoo.
Who's going to say like, don'tdandruff, you need this shampoo?
Like am I going to?
Who's going to say like don'tworry about it, you make you
feel even dirtier.
But she was saying that the ohyeah, it's making it worse.
So then I googled.

(07:36):
When I got home I googled likehey, does Head Shoulders give
you dandruff?
And everybody was like no, andeverybody was like no, it's
supposed to not give youdandruff.
So who knows if I had.
I never noticed it before, butshe was being whatever.
So she gave me this tree oilshampoo or something yeah, it

(07:56):
was 15 for like a bottle, like asmall bottle of it and uh, I
mean, is what it is?
I mean I will say I've I usehead and shoulders most of the
time but, um, for a couplemonths there I had run out of
shampoo.
And you know, like when you runout of shampoo, like you, like

(08:17):
you don't realize you run out ofshampoo until it's out.
I'm not one to keep like sparesaround.
I don't, I don't think aheadlike that.
So I'm in the shower, I don'thave any shampoo.
I didn't know what to do.
So I started using my campshampoo, which is hair shampoo,

(08:38):
body wash, conditioner, laundrydetergent and dishwashing.
It's a wall-in-one camping andI think it's good for like going
into rivers or whatever.
Okay, so, like that was kind ofI guess you could consider that
my emergency stash of likeshampoo, because I don't keep

(09:00):
real shampoo.
So I didn't have shampoo.
I'm like, well, I, well, I gotto take a shower.
I might, I'll go get that,cause I knew I had it and from
our trip up to the Adirondacks Ithink I bought it for that.
So I got that.
And then you kind of just, well, I problem solved for a while.
So I probably use that for Idon't know.
So oh, before you got thishaircut, but then I had gone

(09:25):
back to head and shoulders forat least a couple weeks before
getting this haircut, so itcould have been from that.
I don't want to knock head andshoulders, but I will knock
super cuts.
That lady was so mean.
Speaking of suits, let's give ashout out to the Black Tux, one
of the greatest institutions inamerica right now.
Real easy to deal with forrentals.

(09:46):
Um, it's cool.

Speaker 2 (09:48):
This isn't a sponsored advertisement by them
either.
Fans, this is just us.
Yeah, shout out to a greatproduct it's really cool.

Speaker 1 (09:55):
What you can do is you go online and you can book.
So you can either order it ifyou have your own measurements,
which I don't know how you wouldget them unless you have a suit
that fits you well, you have.
If you have your ownmeasurements, which I don't know
how you would get them unlessyou have a suit that fits you
well.
If you have your ownmeasurements, you can send them
in the mail and they'll mail youa suit.
If it's in stock, they'll mailyou the suit and you can try it
on, and if it doesn't fit, yousend it back or whatever.

(10:17):
I don't know that whole process.
Or they have some locationslike a show showroom locations
where you can actually getfitted in Nordstrom's Well,
mostly Nordstrom's allthroughout the country there's
like 25 locations and thecoolest part about the whole
thing is it's very simple.
You go on, you book online, youfind a time that works for you,

(10:38):
you book on it and everything,and then the best part is, four
days before your appointment,they'll call you and cancel it
and not give you any otheroptions to say, oh sorry, bad
news, we got to cancel it andyou got to cancel your
appointment.
So if you want to reschedule,you know, go online or call this
number.
If you need help, click.
So really great customer serviceLike it.

(11:01):
And even it's the best part is,even when it's a very um
convenient time for any like.
Where you know, a saturday at12 30, I would say, is probably
the one of the more populartimes for these types of
services to be given, and it'sjust funny, it's.
It's so fun that you know eventhose times they can't, they

(11:22):
can't uh, accommodate you.
So really good.
Theux, theblacktuxcom,t-h-e-b-l-a-c-k-t-u-xcom.

Speaker 2 (11:33):
And for anyone else out there who might have asked
been a groomsman in any wedding,just know that if you do call
their customer service and yousay, hey, the groom said I need
to get this color tux, and yousay hey, the groom said I need
to get this color tux, theywon't necessarily recommend you
to do a different fit of thesame color tux.
They may well recommend atotally different suit color for

(11:53):
a groomsman.
So that's always fun to dealwith too.

Speaker 1 (11:57):
And what's really fun is when you rent a suit, they
mail it to you 10 days beforethe wedding.
So if it was a destination typewedding where you might be
heading to the destination ofthe wedding maybe a week
beforehand, when it comes 10days beforehand, you only have 3
days to take care of anyproblems that are there.
So really fun, it's going to bea really good time and just

(12:20):
living on the edge.
So if you like that adrenalinerush of living on the edge, then
you know, go totheblackduckscom
t-h-e-b-l-a-c-k-t-u-xcom.

Speaker 2 (12:32):
All right, you want to get started on the episode,
john now that we got our sponsorin let's do it fans, so I'll
take it back.
Take it back a few weeks here.
So Matt and I were looking forideas for a show.
I am anyway, so.

Speaker 1 (12:51):
I get my lunch break.
Yeah, you're the only onepulling your own weight.
You're right.
You're right, you're right.

Speaker 2 (12:55):
You're good, I got you, you're good.
Yeah, I forgot.

Speaker 1 (12:58):
So I was at lunch, right?

Speaker 2 (12:59):
So here I go, I'm walking around and I end up
walking into a whole foods Iwork in baltimore, go into a
whole foods and I'm just kind ofcruising around killing time
and lo and behold, I see apicture of what looks like I
don't know, say a 73 year oldjohn f kenn Kennedy staring me

(13:25):
down in the face.
And I walk and it's basicallyit's a magazine, a magazine
stand, and it says what if abook of alternative history?
And that perks me right up.
I am like that looks cool.
I got to check this out.
So I pick it off off the stand,I'm flicking through it,

(13:46):
flicking through it and it'sbasically just all of these
what-if scenarios in Americanand British history.
It's actually aBritish-published magazine book,
as they say.
I don't know, and so I take apicture of it, send it to Matt.
And he asked well, did you pickit up for the podcast?
And by this point I'd alreadyleft Whole Foods and I was like,

(14:09):
yeah, I don't know, but you'realways looking for an idea, even
though you found this butdidn't buy it.

Speaker 1 (14:14):
I thought about it, but I needed a confirmation and
I texted Matt.

Speaker 2 (14:17):
He's like, oh, are you going to get it for the
podcast?
And I'm like, yes, I am.
You said, should I?
I think was the exact response.
And then Matt went in, boughthis own copy online and I don't
know.
I just think it kind of gotsome really cool possibilities.

(14:38):
What if history went another way?
You know that's we here on thepodcast.
We always, you know, we try toreplay it by the book and look
at history, the facts of history, and see how we ended up here
today in our normal timeline.
But I don't know.
We just thought let's think howwe can think outside of the box
.
And what if we ask the, youknow, the what ifs?
I think those are just as goodat, you know, seeing how things

(15:02):
could have turned out.
It's fun, it's different.
And so, yeah, like I said,there's all kinds of things in
this magazine.
It's very pop history kind offocused.
You know, for instance, theyhave what if Germany had won
World War I?
What if North Korea had won theKorean War, et cetera, et

(15:26):
cetera.
So we're going through andwe're thinking, all right, what
can we maybe touch on that we'vefocused on previously in this
podcast and maybe go down adifferent path.
If we were to take a differentangle in history, how might
things look a little different?
And, as a lot of our fans mayknow, at the beginning, when we

(15:47):
first launched this whole thing,a big kind of period we stuck
with was the late 18th century,around the time of the American
Revolution and immediatelythereafter.
So in this book they actuallyhave a really cool article.
That's probably been posited anumber of times, but they were

(16:20):
able to pull all these differenthistorians together and kind of
get their hot take on.
What do you think it would havelooked like if the British had
won the War of Independence?
And yeah, that kind of got mattand i's head scratching and we
decided to say, hey, you knowwhat?
I think our fans could findthis pretty interesting,
entertaining.
I think it's safe to say thatmany american history students
don't contemplate if we had lostthe American Revolution, if the

(16:45):
United States had lost theAmerican Revolution.

Speaker 1 (16:47):
What makes you say that?

Speaker 2 (16:49):
I don't.
Well, I remember being in highschool and even in college and
some history classes I took.
We never had a what-ifsupposition.

Speaker 1 (16:59):
So it's never been done.

Speaker 2 (17:02):
I mean, I'm sure it's been done, but you know it's
With all of these what-ifs.
Like'm sure it's been done, butyou know it's with all of these
what ifs, like anything it'salways breaking the barriers of
what history, what learningabout history, can actually
achieve.
Oh, we're busting through theglass ceiling oh, we're doing it
, so yeah, so this whole artit's a really interesting

(17:22):
article and basically the way Ihave it.
They basically just ask theseseven grand questions you know
what would have happened if theBritish won?

Speaker 1 (17:35):
Have you ever seen the movie Butterfly Effect John
With Ashton Kutcher?
I?

Speaker 2 (17:41):
don't think I've seen the whole thing.

Speaker 1 (17:42):
no, but I know the premise.
What's the premise?

Speaker 2 (17:47):
You know if a butterfly, well the.

Speaker 4 (17:51):
No, it's about.

Speaker 1 (17:52):
The butterfly effect doesn't actually involve a
butterfly.

Speaker 2 (17:55):
You realize that, right, no, but the concept is
that if a butterfly flaps itswings on the other side of the
planet in a certain way or, youknow, have, a ripple yeah I have
a ripple effect on theconsequence on on other
space-time continuum kind ofthing.
It's like if one thing if Iwave my hand a certain way in

(18:19):
front of you on the computerscreen, could that cause an
earthquake in another timeline,right?
Isn't that kind of what itmeans.
Yeah, yeah, it's that if onething that changes um one, if
one thing happens differently intime, everything you know it's
a, it's a uh, domino effect oflike but a perceived but like

(18:42):
what is perceived as aninsignificant change or an
insignificant action, might havea very big consequence that
maybe isn't perceived by the, bythe observer of that small
change the idea came to be knownas the butterfly fact, after it

(19:03):
was suggested that the flap ofa butterfly's wings might
ultimately cause a tornado.

Speaker 1 (19:08):
Yeah, see it was coined in the 1960s by Edward
Lawrence, a meteorologyprofessor at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
I would think it'd be like aquantum physics theoretical In
the movie the Butterfly.
Effect.
In the movie the ButterflyEffect, actor Ashton Kutcher

(19:28):
plays a man who has found a wayto travel back to time in his
youth.

Speaker 4 (19:33):
Each time he returns to childhood, he makes some
minuscule changes that radicallyalter the life in the present,
inevitably leading to youguessed it terrifying results.
Inevitably leading to youguessed it terrifying results.

Speaker 2 (19:49):
Doesn't Nick's girlfriend end up dying?

Speaker 1 (19:55):
I remember the big guy from Boy Meets World is like
a gothic dude.
Yeah, his roommate in college.

Speaker 2 (19:58):
And she becomes like a drug addict in one timeline.

Speaker 1 (20:01):
I think that was the actual timeline it's all based
on.
They blew up some guy's mailboxand that's how that's the real
and like killed a kid orsomething that's the, that's the
real timeline I think so, butanyway so that's what we're
looking at?
We're looking at like, uh, thebutterfly effect of history.
I think somewhat yeah, but.

(20:24):
Because one thing changes andthere's a lot of small things
that you wouldn't think aboutthat actually are interesting to
think could have been a resultof one thing changing.
Yeah, and you know it's thebutterfly effect doesn't have to
just be a small event butthat's kind of what.

Speaker 2 (20:51):
No, I understand that , but it's also.
I mean, you're also not goingto write a magazine about what
if scenarios?
If a butterfly landed on a rockat the battle of saratoga that
didn't actually land there, howcould that have changed the
course of history?
You're gonna have to say, well,what if the americans lost the
battle of saratoga, then go downa whole timeline.

Speaker 1 (21:13):
But these things you kind of you know, you can only
which, as we discussed in um,which, as we discussed in
previous episodes of thispodcast, the battle of saratoga,
which was we actually went upthere right, did we?
Is that this podcast?
The Battle of Saratoga, whichwas we actually went up there
right.
Is that where we went?
We went to Saratoga Battlefield.
Yes, we did For a little bit.
We learned that if they didn'twin that battle, possibly would

(21:40):
have lost the war.
So you could change this intowhat if the Americans lost the
battle of saratoga?
What would have happened?

Speaker 2 (21:52):
I think that's a good set and I think that's a good
um point to kind of have in thebecause, in doing research for
this podcast, the biggest sortof like okay, what if the
British won the War ofIndependence?
But the war lasted for what?
Eight years?

(22:13):
I think the real question forme anyway, and kind of where
history could have gone, notjust in the US, not just in what
would have been the US andNorthica, but like the world as
a whole, for me it really stemsaround if france got involved,
and the only reason why francegot involved, as we learned

(22:33):
previous ones, was to basicallytry to weaken its opponent, that
in britain.
So you know, yeah, like yousaid, if we don't win the battle
of saratoga, maybe it's alittle harder to convince them
to get in and there were othertime periods before they could
have lost the war.
But yeah, if France doesn't getinvolved in this war, then

(22:55):
they're not strapped for cash,they're not a bankrupted state,
basically on the eve of theFrench Revolution, let's get
into it.

Speaker 1 (23:00):
Of the French Revolution, let's get into it.
Yeah, let's get into it.
Let's just go through thetimeline as it was in both ways.
John, why don't you give us alittle summary of the time, the
two alternative timelinesposited by these Brits who put
this magazine together forwhatever reason?

(23:21):
You'll find out that it's very.
All of these answers and all ofthese things are very
pro-british in my opinion what'sstopping american?

Speaker 2 (23:35):
what's what's stopping brett bauer, or uh, or
your boy, uh brian stelter himor that other Fox commentator
writing alternative histories.
I don't think Americans want tocontemplate if we lost the
revolution.
I don't think it's in our kindof a.
The British are just asking thebigger questions or they just

(23:56):
have more time on their hands.
I don't know Anyway.

Speaker 1 (24:00):
So yeah, so the way this magazine's laid out.
You probably still butt hurtover it.
That's the sad part.

Speaker 2 (24:05):
It seems that way, but anyway.
Yeah, so in this they have twoseparate timelines and the way
they have it set up in themagazine is that they basically
start with four points on aneutral timeline, so like it's
going one way, and then it justsplits.
So here they have the realtimeline.
So this actually happened.

(24:25):
So in 1774, the IntolerableActs were passed, which we
talked about before, and thatwas basically as a result of the
Boston Tea Party, and you knowthey were basically that was a
way the British were basicallyclamping down.
Then we held a ContinentalCongress that same year.
First Continental Congress wasformed.
They agreed to oppose theIntolerable Acts.

(24:46):
In 1775, april 1775, we havethe shot-heard round of war, the
Battle of Lexington.
Okay, so we're still on track.
And then a few months later weget the Battle of Bunker Hill,
where the Patriot troops bravelyresisted a repeated British
assault.
Okay, the British lose massivenumbers but prevail to take

(25:09):
Bunker Hill.
Okay, and now, okay it all goesHaywire.

Speaker 1 (25:16):
This is where the, as John would say, the butterfly
kicks in.
The butterfly lands on A rockat Saratoga, somebody's musket
and throws off their shot.

Speaker 2 (25:28):
Yep so we'll stick with the real timeline just as a
quick recap.

Speaker 1 (25:33):
So I think most people should know how this goes
.
But go quickly, go actuallybefore the split.

Speaker 2 (25:39):
It's that they have here.
Britain rejects peace in thesummer of 1775, king King George
III ignores the SecondContinental Congress's Olive
Branch petition and the warcontinues.
In May of 1776, king Louis XVIof France solves the Americans'
munitions problems by granting ahuge donation Soon after the US

(26:03):
Declaration of Independence isvoted on in July 4th 1776.
Okay so, staying on our realtimeline, washington carries out
a surprise attack at the Battleof Trenton.
The Patriots claim a decisivevictory, boosting morale.
France declares their supportof the Americans and declares

(26:25):
war on Britain following theBattle of Saratoga.
Three years later, britishsurrender at Yorktown, shown in
full detail in the movieRevolution starring Al Pacino
we'll also be going down therein a couple months in 1812 we
have another war between theBritish and the Americans.

(26:47):
The Star-Spangled Banner iswritten and then, april 1917,
the US enters World War I.
We had a policy of neutrality,but then we decided to get in on
that following the destructionof Lusitania.

Speaker 1 (27:05):
So this timeline basically goes to like we were
dem boys, then we weren't demboys and then we were back to
being dem boys.
That's right.

Speaker 2 (27:17):
So now let's say let's turn it around.
Let's say okay, what happened?

Speaker 1 (27:22):
Let's put this whole thing on its head.
Let's put this whole thing justright upside down on its head.

Speaker 2 (27:30):
Matt, do you want to explain the alternate?
Give them a little something,something.

Speaker 4 (27:36):
Yeah, you're doing good Okay.

Speaker 2 (27:40):
So here we go, fans.
This is when it gets reallycrazy.
So here we go, fans.
This is when it gets reallycrazy.
So we declare our independence,july 4, 1776.
All right, now fast forward toAugust of 1776.
Sir William Howe, the commanderof British forces, claims

(28:01):
victory at Long Island.
The Americans try to escape toManhattan, but the British cut
them off.

Speaker 1 (28:09):
George Washington is killed.

Speaker 2 (28:11):
Then we have the Anglo-American agreement.

Speaker 1 (28:13):
Well, I will say interesting.
They picked the Battle of LongIsland as the butterfly in this
story and not the Battle ofSaratoga.
My opinion not well researchedby these brits, but go ahead
yeah.

Speaker 2 (28:29):
So they're saying from the jump we're losing, so
very shortly from our declaringindependence, they're basically
the british are nipping this inthe bud I'm just saying I'm
saying so anyway in thistimeline.
Ge George Washington deadfollowing the battle on Long
Island.
Then we get the Anglo-AmericanAgreement and this pact

(28:50):
officially ends the war.
Patriot supporters who don'tflee are imprisoned or hung,
including key leaders like JohnAdams and Benjamin Franklin, and
Britain goes on to cement herhold of the colony.

Speaker 1 (29:03):
They're saying it wouldn't have even lasted a year
, the war.

Speaker 2 (29:07):
Wow, Well, by that point it would have been a year.
Get your head up your butts,yeah, out of your butts.
So basically it's probably notback to business as usual, but
the timeline is saying okay, thewar ends in 1776, and then they
fast forward to 1790.

(29:27):
The 13 American colonies alongthe Atlantic coast serve as the
main destination for UK prisontransportation.
Far fewer convicts are sent toAustralia In 1803, with France
effectively bankrupted by itssupport for the American
Revolutionary War.
Spain is courted by the Britishgovernment and persuaded to

(29:50):
release Louisiana.
Britain purchases the territoryat a steep discount.
Then fast forward to 1823,.
France invades Spain.
France invades Spain.
King Louis XVIII, angered bywhat was seen as Spain's gross

(30:10):
betrayal in selling quote FrenchLouisiana, orders the invasion
of Spain, but retreats whenBritain weighs in.
Fast forward to 1840,.
Between 1840 and 1867, we havean act of union.
Lower Canada, upper Canada andthe American colonies are united
into British North America.
The British government appeasesthe French by granting trade

(30:33):
with the regions that France hadceded In 1868, america
population booms, boom.
Controlled immigration intoBritish North America has
gradually increased, withtransportation of criminals to
both America and Australiaending in 1868.
That's where they ended, huh,that's where they ended.

(30:54):
That's where they ended, welldone Brits, well done chaps.

Speaker 1 (31:00):
I will say their timeline.
So basically they're sayingthat America would have been a
bunch of criminals.

Speaker 2 (31:08):
That's what have, yeah.

Speaker 1 (31:10):
Cool.

Speaker 2 (31:11):
They would have sent more to Georgia, australia
wouldn't maybe have been asimportant.
I think, yeah, I agree with you.
I think they could have donemore with this timeline.
I think there's a lot more.
What if they could have, like,actually tackled?
That's what we're here for.
We're going to make our owntimelines, we're going to try

(31:35):
and really kind of just get downto what really might have
happened.
These Brits are way too.
They got blinders on.
They have those blinders on andwe're trying to break those
away.
Let the butterfly spread itswings so let's just, let's just
stop.

Speaker 1 (31:55):
So let's just start with.
Let's just go with.
Okay, us loses the war, orwhatever, whatever you would
call it?
Would you call it the usS losesthe war, or whatever, whatever
you would call it?
Would you call it the US, thecolonies lost the war?
I guess Colonies lose, go backto being colonies, and what
happens in America?

(32:16):
What do you think happens withpeople like well, I guess if
George I don't know that GeorgeWashington dying is nonsense he
wouldn't have died.
That's just BS.
I don't think the commander andcommander of the army would
ever be in a position to bekilled.
Although George Washington didseem to fight, more so than you

(32:37):
would think, I don't know howinvolved he was.

Speaker 2 (32:41):
I think he would have .
I think the consensus is.

Speaker 1 (32:45):
You think he would have gone down with the?

Speaker 2 (32:47):
ship.
He probably wouldn't have diedin battle.
He may well have been hung ifthey were captured.
I think he would have beencaptured and then tried for
treason.

Speaker 1 (32:57):
That's what I'm saying.
So all the boys would have beentried for treason.
All the big players in the game.
Benedict Arnold would havebeenason all the big players in
the game.
Benedict arnold would have beenlaughing all the way to the
bank.
Although 1776, benedict arnoldwouldn't even had a chance to to
uh defect, so he probably wouldhave gotten hung too.

Speaker 2 (33:16):
Yeah, huh, I don't know if he launched the this.
I don't know.
If he had launched, hedefinitely would have gotten
hung.
I don't know when was theinvasion of Quebec.
I know that he led that.
I think that might have beenafter 1776.

Speaker 1 (33:29):
I think so, and he was leading that.

Speaker 2 (33:30):
So if that had happened, he definitely would
have been toast, oh you mean itwould have happened before.

Speaker 1 (33:37):
He might not have been as big of a player.
Well, he might not have been onthe British radar as much 1775.

Speaker 2 (33:43):
So no, he would have been on the British radar as
much, yeah, 1775.
So no, he would have been so inthis.
Yeah, he would have been toast.

Speaker 1 (33:49):
Well, there you go.
So you think about there's abutterfly, there's one butterfly
, butterfly number one.
Benedict Arnold would have beenhung instead of you know.

Speaker 2 (33:58):
And maybe a hero to some that like if there was any
patriot sympathy.

Speaker 1 (34:07):
He could have died with honor.
I think you would get a similarand then you wouldn't have like
the, the colloquial phrase oflike dude, you're such a
benedict arnold, what do youthink it would be.
You wouldn't have that.
So okay.
So these guys get hung now,like, what do you think would
happen with, like westwardexpansion?

(34:27):
So we talked about thelouisiana purchase was like kind
of the biggest part of westwardexpansion in real, in, in real
time, which I don't think thisgoes over in the real timeline.
Um, france sells the louisianapurchase to tommy jay for on the
cheap, because they're in themiddle of the of the french

(34:48):
revolution and they need money,right?

Speaker 2 (34:52):
yeah, but the french had bought it from the spanish,
or it was ceded back to thefrench in 1800, right to
napoleon, because they were likeso it it was French.

Speaker 1 (35:06):
Spain got the territory after the French and
Indian War, the Seven Years' War, right.
So then Spain had it and theydidn't really even want it.
So they gave it back to Francein 1800.
And then that gave Francesomething to sell to the US to
be able to fight Britain more.
I wonder if Spain was like yeah, let's give this.
I wonder if that was a thought,is like, because spain and

(35:27):
britain weren't, weren't themboys either?
Right?

Speaker 2 (35:29):
so spain and france were dem boys before the french
revolution.
So when they actually did theswap so following the french and
indian war, you know basicfrance lost canada to the
British.
That's why we have Quebec andit was very French and very
Catholic they still had like.

(35:50):
Towards the end of the Frenchand Indian War, they still held
what was called Louisiana, allthat territory.
But they basically had asecretive treaty with the
Spanish in 1762.
So before the war even ended,king Louis XV and King Charles
III of Spain, they were demboysand they basically agreed to
swap territory.

(36:10):
So France would give Spain whatis Louisiana, the Louisiana
territory, and Spain would giveFrance some territory in what is
now Italy.
So they had had an arrangementthat worked out for both parties
.
I guess France was saying, okay, well, we're losing this war.
We got to fold all of our chipson North America.

(36:34):
We just lost what is now Canada.
Let's just get out of thiswhole thing and maybe we'll
devote our time elsewhere, maybein Asia, in southeast asia and
india.

Speaker 1 (36:43):
Maybe they'll try to stay competitive with the
british down there so thedifference would be because I
guess the the the situation isfrance probably wouldn't have,
they possibly wouldn't have.
I guess, in general, france inthis alternative timeline,
france, french Revolutionwouldn't have happened for

(37:05):
multiple reasons.
I think part of the motivationfor starting that revolution was
the French people saw theAmerican colonies rise up
against the big empire and theywon.
So I think they were able to.
They thought like, hey, we cando this too.

(37:27):
So not having that example.
And then also, if the war onlylasted a year, france wouldn't
have gotten involved, or even ifthey did, it wouldn't have been
at the financial expense ofwhat it was, so maybe they would
have been in better shape andthere wouldn't have been a
reason for it, even though therewere multiple other reasons why
the french revolution happened,but very calcified and dated

(37:50):
and a lot of the systems rightbut I think that was a big deal.
A big part of it was like why dowe waste all our money for
america maybe, I don't know, soyeah.
So the thought here is so then.
So then there's not that muchdifference.
So they're positing that, likebritain, spain would have just
sold it to spain, would havesold it to britain, as opposed

(38:12):
to france ever getting it andselling it to the us for cheap.

Speaker 2 (38:16):
I don't think westward expansion would have
happened way slower had britainretained the colonies the reason
, main reason being was could beafter the war, after the french
and indian war, you had theroyal proclamation of 1763,
which was basically britain,saying we're going to create a

(38:37):
buffer between yeah, we're notgoing colonies yeah, we're not
going past the appellation offrench right because they don't
want to.

Speaker 1 (38:45):
I think it was mostly for the native american, like I
mean, it's french territory butit's for the native americans.
I think that the one of themain reasons for that is they
don't want to spend any moremoney like right.

Speaker 2 (38:55):
You know, it's border defense yeah, like that's the
big reason they had to basicallybring troops and why we were
taxing, why the british weretaxing americans is like they
would say, it is well, you'repaying for your own defense.
Like we just fought a war in away for your benefit and now we
have this western frontier weneed to protect and, um, we're

(39:16):
gonna charge you taxes to bepaying for it.
And you know, we have people inbritain paying stamp duties and
other taxes that they've beenpaying for decades.
By the time it comes to thecolonies, it's like, yeah, you
got to pay your fair share.
I mean, I think that was kindof what the British were saying.
I think they were kind ofmaking a little bit of a
Trumpian argument you got to payyour fair share for your own

(39:37):
defense.
I think they overstepped theirbounds, like forcing troops to
be quartered on the dime ofcolonists.
I think that was a big whoopsie.

Speaker 1 (39:48):
Well, that was all for the coercive act.

Speaker 2 (39:50):
the intolerable acts, yeah, and that's why we have an
amendment.

Speaker 1 (39:54):
Which probably would have been the rule of the land
also.
It was like those intolerableacts where it was basically like
they can control.
It was just you have to quarteryour soldiers.
You got to pay taxes and allthat stuff.
What?

Speaker 2 (40:09):
They might have pulled back.
I think you might have gotten.
I think there could have been aLincoln situation here, I think
, with the Confederacy.
I think there could have been alet them up easy mindset.

Speaker 4 (40:21):
I don't.

Speaker 2 (40:23):
You think they would have thrown the book at them?
They were already maybe certainregions, certain regions maybe
new england, more than the south, like the south they had, they
were still producing, you know,raw materials and goods granted
with slave labor at that time,and I you know well, that's
another point I want to get to.

Speaker 1 (40:40):
That's another point that I want to get to in a
little bit.

Speaker 2 (40:43):
Sure.

Speaker 1 (40:44):
So we're stuck on westward expansion.
So we're here.
I think that's pretty much it.
I read somewhere in thismagazine that was this I think
is one of the most heavilyleaning British opinions or
arguments that I read in thisthing.
They basically said in reality,great Britain didn't lose much

(41:06):
from losing the war.
They still were able to tradefreely with the US and on top of
that so they were able to stilltrade and make money and their
economy didn't really get hurtthat much in that sense of trade
, and so they were able to dothat and they also didn't have
to spend the money of governingand defending the colonies.

(41:26):
It was kind of like a win-winfor them at the end of the day.
So if you really look back atit, I'm curious if the British
were just like If the Britishmindset is like why do we even
do that?
We should have just let them befree.

Speaker 2 (41:42):
Yeah Well, hindsight's 20 2020 and I don't
know, the british knew that theywere going to have someone like
an alexander hamilton or johnjay or people promoting a
continued close tie with thebritish empire even after
independence but you gottafigure that there's no way the
colonies are gonna be able tosurvive on their own.
But whatever, yeah, I don't know, I just think the king was.

(42:03):
You were seen as a subject andyou were an open rebellion and
you have to be dealt with andyou know we gave you a pretty
long leash for 150 years.
Yes, you've been governing yourown affairs, but, okay, you, you
have local autonomy.
You're claiming you know rightsof these ancient institutions
that you'd say your other, youknow british, your fellow

(42:25):
englishman would have, butyou're stepping out of line,
like you still need to know whowho holds sway here.
So I think that's why theywould have said we got to
prosecute the war.
But yeah, I think of hindsightbeing 2020, fast forward to the
british in 1805, when they're inthe height of, if they're
fighting, uh, they wouldn't havenapoleon to be fighting,
possibly.
So like, yeah, I think inhindsight, they probably would

(42:48):
have maybe not prosecuted much,or they would have just been
more lenient to the colonists intheir, in their right, in their
desire for self-government, Idon't know, it's uh so that's
that takes care.

Speaker 1 (43:02):
In my opinion, that takes care of the geographical
thing.

Speaker 2 (43:05):
I also think, if Mexico became a problem, which
some people so some of theresearch I was doing outside of
this everyone was asking okay,the French Revolution?
Sure, maybe the French wouldhave been in a position, had
they not gotten involved in theAmerican war, the French
monarchy would have been in aposition to maybe be open to a

(43:27):
constitutional monarchy.
Maybe they would have made somereforms in kind of like, in a
British model, to kind ofappease certain landholders, the
clergy in France or what haveyou.
They would have been inpossession to stem that tide.
Others that I was reading sayingwell, the Mexican revolution
probably may well have goneahead, and in part because

(43:48):
mexico, you know, so far removedfrom the span, from spain, who
was governing their affairs likethey may, mexico could have
still fought for theirindependence.
And had they fought for theirindependence, you can make this.
You could basically say, well,maybe mexico would be the ones
with that spanish territory whenwhat is louisiana?
So, who knows, mexico couldhave been a much bigger power,

(44:09):
play much big, bigger superpower, and then maybe that would have
been an impetus for for the 13colonies and what would be
canada to merge, because youhave a rampant mexico on the
loose.

Speaker 1 (44:22):
Um oh yeah, there you go.

Speaker 2 (44:25):
Yeah.
So, yeah, the geography couldhave gone a few different ways,
but I think we both agree that,yeah, population would not have
swelled.
There would not have been asmuch of an open floodgate of
immigration over the course ofthe 19th century.

Speaker 1 (44:37):
I think it would have just been like obviously, well,
what they say.
I don't know how they get theyear 1868, but up until that
point it would have just beenconvicts being sent over here.
I guess for the most part.

Speaker 2 (44:51):
Yeah, well, it would have been convicts, certainly in
Georgia and other places, andthere would have been some
natural population increase bynatural means.
Ben Franklin apparently wassaying like we were going to
have more, just by natural birth, there would be more American
colonists than there would beactual British or English
subjects in the mother land orwhatever.

(45:13):
So that might have also changedthe dynamic, you know.

Speaker 1 (45:19):
But I think probably would have happened anyway.
I think I think it's almostinevitable that the independence
would have happened if it wouldhave been a war or not.
I guess that would havehappened anyway.
I think.
I think it's it's almostinevitable that the independence
would have happened if it wouldhave been a war or not.
I guess that would have beenthe real question yeah it.

Speaker 2 (45:30):
It might have just been a whimper of independence
as opposed, this is just tooexpensive to operate, too
expensive to run you know, onething that I thought was
interesting is gun control.

Speaker 1 (45:42):
You Big Second Amendment situation here in
America and it stems fromProbably is directly related to
look what we were able to dobecause we had the right to bear
arms against the Britishgovernment.
That was the big argument, Iassume to include that in the
Bill of Rights, and obviouslyit's been a contentious thing at

(46:07):
present day.
But if they had lost that warthere's no way they would have
the right to bear arms at thatpoint.

Speaker 2 (46:13):
I think britain may have learned their lesson there
yeah, well again if they wouldhave come back to a more
standoffish approach there's noway he would have let him do
that then again that would meanthe british would have to

(46:33):
continue to provide thatsecurity.
So I feel, I feel like the ideaof self-government and
self-rule and self-defense.
I mean technically it's awin-win, right like to form
their own militia groups nowwould they have allowed them to
have any gun they want just, orany arm, just to have that.
No, I mean, maybe they wouldhave said well, you can't have

(46:55):
cannons as a private citizen oras a private subject, you can't,
you can't have these selectarms.
But yeah, you were still,although I guess they might say
well, what are you having todefend yourself against?
Because presumably the Indianswould have been pacified.
Huh, them.

Speaker 1 (47:14):
Yeah, exactly, that's the point.
So let's get into.
I think this is the big one.
This is kind of to me.
An interesting part of thewhole thing is slavery and

(47:34):
industrialization and how theNorth and South would have been
impacted differently from theresults of this.
John, you started getting intoit a little bit.
My thought is so slavery wasoutlawed by Britain in 1933,
right?

Speaker 4 (47:53):
I think that's when it was like 1833, yes.

Speaker 1 (48:02):
So one thing obviously I would think you
would think, and maybe itwouldn't be the case, maybe they
wouldn't have outlawed it inthe colonies because of how well
it helped Britain financiallyat the end of the day, and maybe
out of sight, out of mindsituation, who knows what, like
um, it would have been.

(48:23):
So there were a couple things,a couple things that I thought
are an interesting flap of thebutterfly wings as it comes to
slavery is we talked about thisa little bit.
I don't know if there wouldhave been as much of a push for
industrializing the, thecolonies as quickly as it
happened, because I you wouldthink that britain might look at

(48:46):
it as like, well, we have thetextile, or we have the textiles
or we have the industry here,we're just going to use the
colonies for their farmland andall the you know agriculture,
what they had been doing to thatpoint.
You don't have alexanderhamilton pushing for
industrialization in the north.
So if there wasn't that muchindustrialization in the North,

(49:07):
would there have been?
There wouldn't have been asmuch.
I don't know if there wouldhave been as much of a divide
between the North and the Southas far as slavery goes, because
the main reason why, one of thereasons why the North was so I
don't want to say they were soanti-slavery, but they were more
of have an abolitionistideology is in reality, it

(49:30):
didn't hurt them in theirpockets as much because they
weren't as much of anagriculture, they weren't
utilizing the slavery.
You know the benefits to that.
You know, at the end of the dayyou can say it was for um, you
can say it was for uh, it wasthe right thing to do or
whatever yeah, moral reasons.
But at the end of the day, Ithink a lot of the reason why it
was a bigger group in the northand it was that there was that

(49:53):
split was because north was moreindustrial, industrious and the
south was more agricultural.
So would you have had that likesplit or would everyone have
been like, no, we want to keepslavery.
For that reason, they wouldhave made more.
And then so, yeah, what wouldhave happened there?
It would have been harder toabolish slavery If Britain left

(50:15):
it to the colonies to say like,if you guys want slavery, you
can have slavery out of sight,out of mind, whatever.
What would it have been?
Would it have been more of a?
Everybody would have been, oh,we're keeping slavery.
Would that have happened?
How much longer would it havebeen?
Would it have been more of a?
Everybody would have been, oh,we're keeping slavery.
Would that have happened?
How long more?
How much longer would that havelasted?
But then also, do you think ifit wasn't that way and it was
still kind of like and justbased on morality or how people

(50:36):
were raised in new england andthat's kind of where the
abolishment came from do youthink there would have been a
situation where still the northand south would have been split
and maybe the south would havetried to gain their independence
by themselves against britain.
You know, those are two.

Speaker 2 (50:55):
Those were two kind of uh scenarios that I kind of
thought of yeah, I certainlythink, and well, a big, a big
part of the question would bethe transportation of slaves.
So that is kind of, I think, amajor contributing factor If
you're going to.
Yeah, there were certainlymoral abolitionists saying it's

(51:17):
just wrong to own another humanbeing and treat them in a
certain way.
But I think the transportationof slavery or that ending in
1807, but like the writing wasalready, on the wall.

Speaker 1 (51:29):
You mean shipping them from Africa to America,
from Africa to America.

Speaker 2 (51:32):
I think that was a major difference and the ships
that oftentimes they were onwere Northern built ships.
So you could make the case thatif transportation lanes stained
open and the British continuedto allow the transportation of
slaves, I would wonder if theNorth would be as anti-slavery
as they are known to be inhistory.

Speaker 1 (51:56):
Just because of being able to sell the ships or being
able to, they're transportingthe slaves.

Speaker 2 (52:00):
So they need this market.
The market is it doesn't matterif it's cotton, I mean, or
human beings, if they weremaking money and the means of
getting it was on the ships theywere building.
Money Talks.

Speaker 1 (52:11):
BS walks.
If there's one thing I learnedin life, it's that.
And that's the end of the day.
I mean, that's the thing yougot to think.
Take all the morality out of it, the morality issues out of it.
Everyone's just trying to makea buck, and I think Britain
would have been looking at itdifferently if they were making
the money off of this crop orwhatever, making the money off

(52:33):
of the slaves.
I don't know.
I don't know what the slavesituation was like in Britain in
the 1820s.
I don't know.
It had to have been a differentscene than in America.

Speaker 2 (52:48):
Well, the slave trade ended.
It looks like it ended inAmerica.
The slave trade ended in bothBritain, the British Empire.
So in the real timeline, fans,British Empire ended abolished
the slave trade in 1807.
America abolished the slavetrade in 1807 1808, so they
actually both at the same timeabolished the slave trade.

Speaker 1 (53:11):
But that was just transporting from africa.
But there was there was stillslavery this is just like
international slave trading,right.
But then you know, and then atthese at the same time and I
don't know the time, the exacttimeline of how all this stuff
went, but america, up until thecivil war they were working on

(53:32):
like a slower abolishment ofslavery, in a sense that like if
you were born before this year,any of your kids are free, or
whatever.
I think that's kind of how theystarted started doing it.
We won't get into that, AbrahamLincoln yeah right, we won't get
into that, but it's not like itwas like zero to 100 in 1865 or

(53:53):
whenever the actualemancipation happened.
But anyway, go ahead.
I don't know where I left you.

Speaker 2 (54:00):
Well, I also think we have to consider the underlying
.
So what happened right?
Why do we have Haiti?
I mean, haiti is a countrytoday because of a slave revolt
that happened to their Frenchoverlords in the 1780s.

Speaker 1 (54:13):
So you think they would have been more vulnerable
to a slave revolt?
In the.
Caribbean.

Speaker 2 (54:22):
Primarily in their Caribbean slave revolt.
The caribbean primarily intheir caribbean, I would think
even more so in the caribbeanpossessions, in the in the west
indies and and places like thatwhere the slavery system was but
who cares about that?
right now we're talking aboutamerica, I think the slave
revolt, yeah, I think.
Hey.
Well, you have to look at it asa whole.
If you're talking about thewhole British Empire winning the

(54:43):
war and them being, I thinkthey would have still ended
slavery, probably in the 1830s.
I think southern slaveholderswould have been very resistant
to it.
Would they have been asresistant as they were 20 years
later when cotton plantationswere that much more embedded
into their whole economy,fueling the mills of the north

(55:06):
and fueling the mills of britain?

Speaker 1 (55:08):
I don't know but I think you would have the cotton
gin embedded.
That was basically what causedthe slavery uptick in the south.
Now 1793, okay, okay.

Speaker 2 (55:24):
Yeah, so that was definitely like an accelerant.
But what did they do?
I mean, with the SlaveryAbolition Act of 1833, they
ended slavery in the empire, butthey basically provided
apprenticeship to freed slavesand they compensated slave
owners.
So you would have to look atthat, would have to have been a
thing in the southern colonies,maybe all the colonies, I think

(55:48):
slavery would have existed inall the colonies up until the
british would have axed it underthe britain wins, the american
revolution timeline, um, I mean,slavery was still a thing in
new jersey in 1865 before the13th amendment was passed.
So I think, yeah, you wouldhave definitely had to look at
compensation.

(56:11):
And yeah, I don't know if theBritish might have sponsored a
colonization of Africa, if theywould have been interested in
sending freed slaves from theAmerican colonies back to Africa
.
Maybe, maybe not, but I wouldsay this if they did free the
slave and there was, you know,however, many millions of these

(56:31):
newly freed people and theystill had the rules on the books
of the 1763 proclamation whereyou can't move west, then you
just increased, you know, yourfree population by this and that
I don't know there would havebeen something that they would
have had to have done, I think,to free them, had they freed
them.
But I don't see why it wouldhave been any different, like

(56:53):
them ending abolishing slaveryelsewhere in the empire.
I think it would have been Ithink they would.

Speaker 1 (56:58):
It would have been more of a financial benefit for
them to keep it in the coloniesyeah, of course it's a greater
financial benefit, no doubtabout that.
That's why I'm saying theymight not have done it.

Speaker 2 (57:09):
That's the question well, the colonies weren't just
asking the questions that?

Speaker 1 (57:12):
haven't been asked, john, we're.
We're turning it upside downhere.
We're turning history on itshead.
That's what we talked aboutends, I think I think you have a
hard time having any kind ofimagine.
Do you have an imagination?
You haven't mentioned the wordindia once in this conversation.

Speaker 2 (57:32):
Speaking of imagination, the like the crown
in the british.
What would be the crown in thebritish empire?
You're not even taking intoconsideration all british
possessions in the in thisalternative timeline.
You just think the americancolonies are the bee's knees of
the entire British Empire.
That's what we're talking about, but it's not.
It's not necessarily the case.
India was already there.

Speaker 1 (57:52):
How is that having an imagination?
Talking about India, you don'thave an imagination.
I don't think it's amazing.
I've never met somebody who hadno imagination.
I don't know what you want meto say.
Your dreams must just be likeeveryday life, like, oh, waking

(58:18):
up, having a coffee, eat mybreakfast, go to work, come home
from work, go to bed.
That's my dream.
You can't have any fun talkingabout anything that happens
differently.

Speaker 2 (58:34):
I want to have fun.
I'm here to have fun.
I'm here to have fun.

Speaker 1 (58:39):
Okay, let's talk about India.
Fun.
They wouldn't have been able tohave the Indian genocide under
Winston Churchill, but then thatwould have been the same mind.

Speaker 2 (58:48):
So you think they would have just kept slavery
across the whole empire then?
Then why didn't they get rid ofit everyone?
Why, if they won therevolutionary war?

Speaker 1 (58:56):
I'm not commenting on india, I'm saying in america
they would have maybe left it.
It's a thought.
It's a thought, it's animagination of what could it be
if they had won in America maybeyou have to go all the way back

(59:17):
to if the, if the, if britain,if britain won the war of
independence, how would thathave impacted their hold on
india?
Well, they might I don't thinkthere was.
It might not have acceleratedtheir expansion there.

Speaker 2 (59:35):
Maybe they would not have gone in india as quickly as
they had had.
They kept their americancolonies, just like with
australia.
Maybe they wouldn't have asmuch of a need for australia
like they obviously has had avery big impact so then how
would that have impacted theslavery?

Speaker 1 (59:52):
if they didn't go into india, then they wouldn't
have had it, yeah, or wouldn'thave been as much of an impact
is what I'm saying.
I'm saying they could havebenefited greatly from the
slavery in america if they were,if, if they still like, owned
america or however you want tosay it, held sovereignty over

(01:00:15):
America.
You're paying less for thegoods.

Speaker 2 (01:00:22):
Yeah, it's lowering the cost of the product.
Yeah, I mean I would say it'spossible they would have kept it
.
Yes.

Speaker 4 (01:00:32):
But, then I would.

Speaker 2 (01:00:34):
But then it's possible, I don't know if they
would have eliminated itthroughout the British Empire in
the 1830s, but somebody at'spossible.
I don't know if they would haveeliminated it throughout the
British Empire in the 1830s butsomebody at some point.

Speaker 1 (01:00:43):
Now what if the South revolted against the North?
Still, the Civil War stillcould have happened, but instead
of it being the Confederatesversus the Union, it would have
been like the Confederates, orwhatever you would call them.
Maybe they would just be calledthe United States at that point
.
You know the United Statesdidn't exist, or they did at one

(01:01:06):
point.
Maybe they'd go back and belike we're going to be the
United States again, we're theSouth, blah, blah, blah, and
then be the South versus the.
You know what do you call it?
British North America stillwould have been, and maybe they
would have won, because maybe itwould have just been like
Britain wouldn't have put.

(01:01:26):
I do think Britain would haveput as much resources and risked
as many lives for the Norththat the North did to maintain
the Union, they probablywouldn't have had as much
interest in that.

Speaker 2 (01:01:44):
No, if the British were only dealing with the
southern colonies, I we might.
We could have averted war, Ithink if new england was its own
.
But it's new england that drovea lot of, obviously the south
and, like people in Virginia,they obviously had their own
history and knowledge of whatself-government meant and the
House of Burgesses and all that.
But I think New England wassuch a firebrand for it all that

(01:02:10):
if it was just the Southdealing with the British, I
think they may well have stayed.
There was even books I have oneright here about should the
Confederacy rejoin the BritishEmpire.
During the Civil War there wastalks of that too and they were
like well, we struck a bad dealwith these Northerners, with
these New Englanders.
We took a rotten deal, joiningin union with them.

(01:02:33):
Should we look at returning tothe British Empire, even if that
means giving up slavery?
Because dealing with these guysis even a greater form of
tyranny and we're shootingourselves even more in the foot
by staying as part of this unionwith this northern aggressor.

Speaker 1 (01:02:48):
I don't know if you can look at it, but no, but
that's not this.
We're talking.
That's a different timeline.
We're talking timeline whichmeans with these butterfly wings
.
I got it.
You're getting way into thethree, four, five different
butterflies.

Speaker 2 (01:03:03):
So I don't have an imagination.
So I do have an imagination.
Is that what you're trying tosay?

Speaker 1 (01:03:08):
I don't think you do.
I truly don't think you have animagination.
I've never met anyone with lessof an imagination.

Speaker 2 (01:03:20):
Let's get some background here, okay.
In 1772, lord Mansfield'sjudgment in the Somerset case
emancipated a slave who had beenbrought to England from Boston
in the province of MassachusettsBay, and helped launch the
movement to abolish slaverythroughout the British empire.
So even four years, three yearsbefore, four years before

(01:03:43):
American independence the ballwas already rolling in England
about emancipation of slavery.
The case ruled that slavery hadno legal status in England and,
as it had no common law orstatutory law basis and as such,
someone could not legally be aslave in England the 1772.
However, many campaigners,including Granville sharp, took

(01:04:05):
the view.

Speaker 1 (01:04:07):
I don't want to hear you read about that.
I don't want to hear you readthis article to the fans for the
first time, and I don't thinkthe fans want to hear it.

Speaker 2 (01:04:18):
I think it would have still ended.
I don't think the dollar signnecessarily would have been the
be all end all that's becauseyou don't have any imagination.
Well, I'm just reading thehistory.
I'm trying to read the actualhistory and make it.

Speaker 1 (01:04:29):
But we're in an alternative history, John.
We're in butterfly effects.
We're in Ashton Kutcher'suniverse that he created with
that fine film.
Let's move on.

Speaker 2 (01:04:41):
I okay, I I think the south would have given up more
likely to give up slavery underthe terms they would have gotten
from the british than what they.

Speaker 1 (01:05:00):
When we had our pre-show, you said the phrase
stayed like a bread basket.
I'm not sure what you mean bythat, so explain, explain
yourself there um, you know just, would the America still have

(01:05:27):
been that breadbasket?

Speaker 2 (01:05:28):
I don't remember saying that at all.
Is that why you put me on thespot?

Speaker 1 (01:05:32):
I have notes here and I made a note and said John has
to explain himself here we weretalking about industrialization
and then you said stayed like abread basket.

Speaker 2 (01:05:48):
Like, yeah, you were saying about it being just more
rural and they would have been acolony that fed the mother.

Speaker 1 (01:05:55):
Is that what a bread basket means?
Oh, like they were like the.
That's what a colony istechnically.

Speaker 2 (01:06:01):
technically, I mean, they're at the service of the
empire to provide food well,that's kind of what we were just
talking about okay, just like.
I think it's fine.
I think it's empire and I thinkit's interesting.

Speaker 1 (01:06:15):
The last point I have here that they talked about on
this in this little magazine,talked about in this little Brit
rag that we purchased, wasWorld War I involvement, which
is an interesting thought here.
So what happened in the regulartimeline?
What we talked about was US andBritain were Dem boys.

(01:06:36):
Then they weren't Dem boys.
Us and Britain were Dem boys.
Then they weren't Dem boys andthen, even though they were Dem
boys as far as trade andeverything, I think that was
more of a mutual agreement of weneed each other.
It wasn't so much that theywere Dem boys necessarily, but
then they basically weren't Demboys for a long time in the
1800s and everything them boysfor a long time in like the

(01:07:00):
1800s and everything.
And then I think a big part ofthey they kind of started making
back up as far as being themboys like towards the end of the
19th century and that was thatand then that was kind of like
capped by the us going to goingover there and helping them in
World War I.
Mm-hmm.

Speaker 2 (01:07:19):
Yeah, well, we certainly had a neutrality act
and Woodrow Wilson ran on the Ikept us out of the war platform
during his term.
So we might have been gettingcloser, but we weren't
necessarily you know, strongestallies and there was even talk
about us invading.
In this magazine there'sanother timeline of like what if

(01:07:40):
we invaded canada during worldwar one?

Speaker 1 (01:07:43):
so I mean I think yeah.
So the thought so there's acouple thoughts here too is like
one thing is the us was a hugehelp in in um winning that war
for britain, I think and thatwas a big part of them.
The US coming in 1917, 1918 wasa big.

(01:08:03):
I'm not a World War I buff, I'mnot a World War II buff, not
really even a history buffnecessarily, but I gather that
it helped them a lot and thethought is, with the slower rate
of industrialization andtherefore a slower rate of

(01:08:25):
population growth or anythinglike that, maybe it wouldn't
have been as much of a leg up toBritain.
So again, another thing thathelped them at the end of the
day is the fact that they weremore of a help in World War I.
If they had won that war itmight not have been as much of a
help.
I think the US would have beendragged into that war if they

(01:08:49):
were part of the United Kingdomat that point or the British
Empire, and then that could havealso.
I think being dragged into allof Britain's wars was one of the
reasons for independence anyway, and I think over and over time
, if the US kept getting draggedinto these wars that Britain

(01:09:13):
was involved with, that Englandwas involved with, could have
led to another reason forindependence at that point was
involved with could have led toanother reason for independence
at that point.
So it could have been like thewar for independence would have
been delayed until you know theearly 20th century and like
maybe it would have been asituation with with ireland like
as with ireland, where it'slike, oh, they're in world war
one and they're depleted and youknow they're, uh, you know this

(01:09:35):
is an easy time for us toattack, to shoot for
independence because they'reoccupied with World War I.

Speaker 2 (01:09:43):
Yeah, I think one who the combatants would be in
World War?
I would be very different.
Don't know if Germany wouldeven be an empire at that point
if you don't have a Napoleon.
If you go back down thebeginning of the timeline,
there's no Germany.
There's no probably Germanunification or Italian
unification.
So we don't even have those,those countries as we knew them,

(01:10:05):
as we know them.

Speaker 1 (01:10:06):
I still think oh, that's an imaginative thought.
Huh.
That's an imaginative thought.

Speaker 2 (01:10:14):
I still think it would be Britain versus France.
That would be the next worldwar, mean that would be the
world war we assume again onthis timeline.
If france never gets involvedin the american revolution, they
never have their own frenchrevolution.
They then maybe proceed to goaround the world.
Maybe they're more competitive,maybe they colonize australia

(01:10:35):
and new zealand, maybe they getmore imprint in Southeast Asia.
France.
Oh yeah, they found that theywere there, they were circling
around, but if they don't havethat, but if Britain would have
won the war, Napoleon wouldn'thave been doing anything.
There would be no.

Speaker 1 (01:10:57):
You're getting too far into the third butterfly,
John.

Speaker 2 (01:11:02):
Yes, we would fight in world war one, but I don't
think it would be against,necessarily against germany and
austria, hungary.
I think it would be againstfrance, again there you go.

Speaker 1 (01:11:12):
But yeah, there were some thoughts there.
What do you think about the ustaking that or the colonies
taking that as an opportunity togain their independence during
World War I?

Speaker 2 (01:11:21):
Quite possible.
It's when most revolutionshappen.
I'll tell you Some Russianrevolution happened that way,
both of them French revolutionhappened that way.
Most revolutions happen becausethe one in power is either cash
, you know, is having moneyproblems, or is, you know,
preoccupied with something else.
So I think it would eventuallyhappen.

(01:11:44):
I think you're right I thinkamerica would eventually get its
independence, one way or theother either there's no way.

Speaker 1 (01:11:49):
There's no way, we'd still be be a.
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:11:55):
I think, as I think, as the british empire would
mature, I still think we wouldget something like a
commonwealth of nations, wherewe would have one head of state
over all these different nations, but they would all basically
be responsible for their ownlocal affairs so let's get to
the, let's get to the fun of ithere.

Speaker 1 (01:12:14):
So that's, I don't know.
Do you have anything else toadd as far as like time, no,
that's it, no, that's it, that'sthe full butterfly.
I'm shocked with all thatresearch that you did, that you
didn't think of anything offpaper here.
Think of another thing to talkabout, but that's all right.

(01:12:34):
So, john, we talked about this.
I'm hoping that you took thetime to at least get a list
together here, the top threefounding fathers, to be the
first to kiss the ring of thecrown.
Had they lost, who would be thefirst flip-flopper, the first

(01:12:55):
three flip-floppers that youcould think of?
I'm going say I thought you'dhave this written down.
Sorry, I gotta hang with us forthe gotta hang with Robert
Morris and he was the money man.

Speaker 2 (01:13:18):
I think the money man would probably kiss first.

Speaker 1 (01:13:21):
I have him too.
Money talks, bs walks, as theysay.

Speaker 2 (01:13:27):
Second would probably be maybe James Wilson of
Caledonia.
Who's?
That Also a federalist.
He was Scottish.

Speaker 1 (01:13:36):
Was he a founding father?
Yeah, Pennsylvania.
Okay, that's a fun father.
Yeah, pennsylvania.
Okay, that's a fun answer,that's fun.

Speaker 2 (01:13:44):
Ruth gave a state house yard speech about what the
powers of the federalgovernment would be.
My third one I mean Hamilton.
He loved the British system.
He loved all the corruption ofthe system.
He was.

Speaker 1 (01:13:58):
Yeah, he's my first.
He's my number one.
It definitely would be him.
Although he was pretty, heseemed like he was pretty
gung-ho in the revolution.
You'd think he would.
I don't know if he wouldflip-flop, but I think he would
be okay with it.

Speaker 2 (01:14:23):
I think that's a fair point.
That's a fair point.
I mean, he fought and he wasthere.
I don't think he would havefrozen his ass off at valley
forge if he wasn't in it to winit um yeah, like he definitely
wanted to be, like he wasdefinitely a big integral part
of it.

Speaker 1 (01:14:34):
So it's hard to say him because of that, but at the
same time I think he would belike okay, well, you know, I'll
deal with it, although he mighthave gotten hung.

Speaker 2 (01:14:45):
Maybe we're not flipping it on the head enough.
Maybe it would be like a ThomasJefferson.
You know, we just see all thewriting, all the snaps.
I was thinking that.

Speaker 1 (01:14:53):
But he's actually on my list of last two, and the
reason for that is he seemedlike a bit of a rebel helping
Katushko get out of America withthat fake passport.
He didn't follow the rules.
He wasn't a rule follower, so Ithink he would have been one of
the last.

Speaker 2 (01:15:12):
Wasn't a rule follower, but also wasn't a
fighter either.

Speaker 1 (01:15:17):
He was a.
What do they call people whoare smart?
Renaissance man what do theycall people who are smart?
He was a.
What do?
They call people who are smart.
Renaissance man.
What do they call people whoare smart?
He was a Intellectual, anintellectual.
So you have to be Other peopleon my list.
Other people on my list werethe first to kiss the crown.
John Adams for sure.
He would definitely be one.
I think he should be.
He would be number one overAlexander Hamilton, I think.

Speaker 2 (01:15:39):
You think he kisses it before him.

Speaker 1 (01:15:40):
Oh my God, I think he would have been kissing it
immediately, don't you?
Yeah, him and John Jay wouldhave been over there yucking it
up with King Georgie up there.
I don't know what those guyswere thinking.
We had nothing to do with that,sorry.

Speaker 2 (01:15:59):
Oh, I know what those guys were thinking we had
nothing to do with that, sorry,oh, I know who you would have.
One of my last, francis Marion,would be a first to kiss.
No, would not kiss it, hold on.

Speaker 1 (01:16:12):
Stop getting out of order.
I got one more, first to kissthe crown.
I got one more, paul Revere.
Think so I do.
What did he do after that ride?
I think he completely wussedout after that ride.
You know what I mean, mm-hmm,I'd like to think he was kind of

(01:16:36):
like one of those guys who,like, dipped his toe in the
revolution and then, when it gotreal, think he was kind of like
one of those guys who, like,dipped his toe in the revolution
and then, when, stuff, when itgot real, he was like, oh,
whoops, like I think he was justkind of like I feel like he was
kind of, you know, yeah, thisis fun, yeah, let's, let's,
let's, you know, let's rile thisup a this.
And then, when it when, when itgot real, I think he was like,

(01:16:57):
oh, I was just kidding, that'swhat I think I could be
completely wrong.

Speaker 2 (01:17:01):
I just was just telling you they were.
They're on their way.

Speaker 1 (01:17:03):
I mean, I don't know what they're supposed to do.

Speaker 4 (01:17:04):
I mean they're on their way.
I mean, I just saw these guysin red coats.

Speaker 1 (01:17:07):
I didn't know what to do yeah, I was telling everyone
that you were coming, so thatyou know you could welcome them
you know, I was just lettingeverybody Put the kettle on.
Yeah, I was just announcingyour arrival.

Speaker 2 (01:17:20):
Get the tea ready for you, get some biscuits and
crimpets.
I was just letting him know.
What about Benny Arnold?
That's a toss-up.
That's actually a toss-up.
If we go into the timeline, inthe book if it was 1776, if
we're going under the timelinewhere he just wrapped up the
Quebec thing 1976, if we'regoing under the timeline where
he just wrapped up the quebecthing obviously he'd be a wanted

(01:17:41):
man by the british empire, buthe might be over.
I don't know if he would havebeen over it at that point and
would have been like yeah, youknow what?

Speaker 1 (01:17:49):
I mean, obviously he had, he wouldn't.
The main reason why he flippedwas because he didn't feel like
he got his his flowers for whathe had done.
Um up in what was it?
What was he?
Was he a fort ticonderoga?
Was it ticonderoga that he wasat, where he was like the hero
and he got hurt and then horatiogates stole his thunder horatio

(01:18:12):
gates stole the show andbenedict arnold was like bumming
around in philadelphia, injuredand didn't think people cared
enough about him.
That was the whole thing forthat.
So he wouldn't have had thatanimosity because of that.
I don't think by 1776.
But just his willingness toflip-flop like that.
I mean you got to say he'dprobably be a ring kisser, if

(01:18:36):
you ask me A ring kisser.

Speaker 2 (01:18:38):
I don't think Washington would be one of the
first, but I think he certainlywould kiss it.

Speaker 1 (01:18:42):
I don't.

Speaker 2 (01:18:43):
Oh, I do.
Well, Washington, I meanWashington, he loved the country
that much he would say I don'twant to destroy the country, I
don't want to destroy it.
I think he would have a RobertE Lee kind of sentiment about it
.

Speaker 1 (01:18:54):
It's like we got to reconcile.
Like I love, my country wouldhave been hung immediately, so
you can't really even figure.

Speaker 2 (01:19:01):
Factor him into the.
What would he kiss it before hewas hung would he go braveheart
style let me go braveheart.

Speaker 1 (01:19:09):
I think he would definitely go braveheart style.
They're literally a littlebraveheart.

Speaker 2 (01:19:12):
He's going to be killed either way.
It's either he's going to bebeheaded straight away or for
mercy, or he's going to get likehis bowels torn out.

Speaker 1 (01:19:22):
I thought he got his wee wee cut off.
What?

Speaker 2 (01:19:27):
In Braveheart, I imagine they cut his stomach
open and they started pullingout his intestines.
That's what they were likemimicking.
That's what like before he getson stage, they like they have,
like the, they have the midgetwith the puppet and he's
pretending to pull things out.
They're mimicking what's goingto happen.

Speaker 1 (01:19:46):
I always thought it was.
He got his weeby cut offbecause when I watched it for
the first time, I must have beenmiddle school at the time,
maybe early high school.
We were watching it.
We're always making commentsthroughout a film.
I were watching it and you know, um, I'm a we're always, you
know, making comments throughouta film.
I was watching it with my dad.
My dad, you know how he screamslike freedom while it's going

(01:20:08):
on.
You know my dad commented itwas like freedom, freedom like
you know, he got his.
He has the wee wee cut off, somaybe that's why I always
thought he got his little weewee cut off.
You sure that wasn't all thathappened.

Speaker 2 (01:20:25):
I mean, I guess it was part of it oh, he gets like
stretched on like a rack andthen he gets.
That's the last thing they dobefore he cut his head off.
Then he'll freedom.
Cut his wee wee.
Would washington do that, Iwonder?
No, I think that's interestingto say.
Who was the real man of georgewashington?
Okay, he's gonna be killed.
Does he have a freedom moment?

(01:20:47):
I don't know if he kind of gotdrugged into it.
That's a tough one you want ifthey, if they saw that george
washington could be a linchpinif they were like we'll kiss the
ring.
We know we have enough patriotsand hotbed people that are
still going to be upset, but youare such a great unifier of men
, you bring people together, youare a natural leader.

(01:21:09):
Would they keep him alive underthe condition that he obviously
kissed the ring?
Under the condition that heobviously kissed the ring, would
they keep him alive to keepstuff in order immediately after
the war?
Or would his own people kind ofcome after him?
Would they be like how couldyou surrender or how could you

(01:21:30):
let us lose?
Like I wonder if Washingtonwould be worth more alive than
dead, because then you make amartyr right and that's not good
.
That's always going to lingerthat's true I think, they would
have just hung him like no, butthen again maybe he wouldn't
have been the martyr that we nowknow, because he wouldn't have
had all that, all that time atvalley forge and the crossing of

(01:21:51):
the trenton, all the mythologysurrounding him.
Now I guess never would havehappened.

Speaker 1 (01:21:54):
So yeah, yeah, but they wouldn't really even know
him that well.

Speaker 2 (01:21:59):
He would have just been the bozo that started the
french and indian war I'm aboutto play this the timeline of
that guy's life single-handedlychanged the course of history,
and that's why, he's the logo ofour show it would have been
like, oh my like, if he wouldhave been captured.

Speaker 1 (01:22:17):
Hey, georgie, it didn't work out so well for you
this time around.
Huh, getting involved in theseven seven years war.

Speaker 4 (01:22:25):
Huh, how's that american dream going for you,
boy?
I guess the real question is Ijust think he wouldn't have been
so here's.

Speaker 1 (01:22:38):
So here's my list.
My list would have been JohnHancock definitely wouldn't have
kissed the ring.
He's a G.
Look at the ladies man.
I know he would have.
Yeah, he would have been.
Yeah, george Washingtonprobably would have been hung
anyway.
Thomas Jefferson what we talkedabout, I think he was more of a
, he was a rule breaker.
And then, I think, rogerSherman, just because he signed

(01:23:02):
everything.
So I don't know if he'd be ableto walk back on that.
He signed the Declaration ofIndependence, the Constitution
and the Articles ofConfederation.
They only wanted to do so.
So kind of hard to backtrackthere.

Speaker 2 (01:23:18):
I think there'd be some Southern who I don't know.
But, like I was saying aboutthe South, if they were just
dealing with the South, I thinkyou'd probably find more
Southern.
You think Francis Marion wouldhave kissed the ring.

Speaker 1 (01:23:29):
No, I don't think he would have they wouldn't have
found, that, they wouldn't evenhave found that guy I don't know
.

Speaker 2 (01:23:35):
You read the book on him.
Well, he wouldn't have beenable to do his thing, I mean
this, this, this timeline isjust this butterfly effect is
like making my brain melt atthis point.
We're going 70, 76, yeah, no, Iguess he didn't even.
He didn't even get a movie madeafter him.

(01:23:55):
He wouldn't even have a moviemade after him, yeah the patriot
wouldn't have been a movie madeafter him.

Speaker 1 (01:23:59):
He wouldn't even have a movie made after him.

Speaker 2 (01:24:00):
Yeah, the patriot wouldn't have been a movie
revolution starring al pacino wedidn't really touch on the
native americans.

Speaker 1 (01:24:06):
The british posit again very heavily british
influence.
They say that the the nativeamericans would have benefited
because the british would havetreated them nicer than we did I
mean, there's probably sometruth to that for for a while.
For a while like, yeah, maybethey would have had their land
longer, I mean, but at currentlythey would have still been.

(01:24:29):
It would have been the samething, maybe, maybe not.

Speaker 2 (01:24:33):
Yeah, they would have been nicer than the spanish
probably yeah, but all so allthat's about yeah, not about
what's nicer than it's also justlike.
But it's possible that some ofthose, some uh tribes might have
actually formed a federation.
They might have looked like,formed something that looked
like a real country.

(01:24:54):
You have the five civilizedtribes that were in the in the
south, with the cherokee, thecreek, all right like they might
have actually confederated intosomething that was like a real
thing like a real well, theycould have done that anyway.

Speaker 1 (01:25:09):
They never did, so what would that have changed?

Speaker 2 (01:25:11):
well they wouldn't have had this.
They still had the time to doit.
Not with the, not with theamericans lose, winning the war,
and then the Americans pushingwest.

Speaker 1 (01:25:21):
They pushed west a little bit quicker, I guess, but
they had all that time, theyhad how many they had.

Speaker 3 (01:25:28):
In between the French and Indian War when did the
whites settle 1492?

Speaker 1 (01:25:32):
Is that when it was?
When did Columbus sail theocean blue?

Speaker 2 (01:25:35):
Well, Leif Erikson came 400 years before that.

Speaker 1 (01:25:41):
So they had 400 years to do it, john, or 300 years to
do it, and they didn't do it.
So I don't know how this wouldhave changed anything.

Speaker 2 (01:25:45):
Well, they would need a model if they, if they've
been living a certain way forthousands of years.
Who would model the britishwould have helped them, you
think if there was incentive forthem to yeah, sure, if they
were providing things that theywanted and they were able to
trade with them.
Yeah, you trade with us andwe'll help you develop like a
quote unquote civilized system.

(01:26:06):
Sure, I'm sure that wouldhappen, I mean probably no.
I read the book?

Speaker 1 (01:26:11):
No, it probably would .
You know what.
You know who would have beenthe first to kiss the ring of
the crown?
John John would have been thefirst.
If he was in this situation, hewould have been like I don't
know what those guys were doing.
You're a frontrunner and aBritish what do they call it?
What's like a Francophile, butfor British Anglophile, yeah,
you're an anglophile dude Bigtime.

(01:26:33):
Always have been, always willbe.
This is tough to have thisconversation with you my
question is we haven't eventalked about india yet do

Speaker 2 (01:26:46):
you think the world's better off?
Would the world be better offtoday, knowing what you know
throughout the course of thisepisode?

Speaker 1 (01:26:52):
well, here's the thing.
This is what I I did have.
The last thing we wanted totalk about is how would the
world be today had Britain wonthe war?
And let's just go with, let'sjust go with.
They won the war and can likewe're like the U S is still like
they never like the U S nevergot independence.

(01:27:14):
You know, we've kind of gonethrough right now that probably
by this point we would have beenindependent to some extent, but
say Britain always ruled.
So there's a couple thoughtshere that I had.
I don't know if you hadanything here.
One of the things that we talkedabout on the podcast was
Princess Diana's death in Paris.

(01:27:34):
Maybe she would have been inAmerica at the time of her death
.
Maybe her and Dodie would havebeen in New York City instead of
Paris, and maybe the crashwould have happened in the
Lincoln Tunnel as opposed towhatever tunnel it was in France
.
And how would that have changed?
You know, I think there wouldhave been, you know, more, you

(01:27:57):
know, intrigue, had that beenthe case, maybe a little bit
more of hey, maybe it was a,maybe it was a deep state
situation.
You know, maybe theseconspiracies might have.
It might have validated some ofthese conspiracies because,
like she was over in america,could have been maybe, maybe,
maybe that would have been.

(01:28:18):
Maybe that would have been the,the assassination of archduke
france ferdinand version of like.
Then the us would have foughtfor independence because maybe
it would have been somethingwhere england thought that the
us were the ones that killed herright.
Maybe maybe james john and dan,or john james and dancing in

(01:28:39):
his little fiat.
Maybe he was a, a uh americanspy like an american, yeah, like
an america like.
And then they thought and thenthat would have launched us into
a war with britain, like forindependence.
Because of that, fiat saleswould have probably drastically
dropped in america, um, and thelincoln tunnel would be probably

(01:29:05):
even harder to get through alsowould not probably ever be
named lincoln.

Speaker 2 (01:29:11):
Would probably be named the tarleton tunnel, maybe
right, maybe.

Speaker 1 (01:29:16):
Well, I guess he didn't.

Speaker 2 (01:29:17):
Cornwallis timeline cornwallis tunnel tunnel, maybe
Right.
Maybe, Well, I guess he didn'tfight yet in his timeline.

Speaker 1 (01:29:22):
Cornwallis tunnel.

Speaker 2 (01:29:25):
Cornwallis tunnel, the Howell tunnel, churchill
tunnel.
Pick a commander that fought inthe war and stick him on a
tunnel.
That's interesting.
Interesting thought there right, yeah, they let things fester
just for all these hundreds ofyears, like we just become, like
we just become an outgrowth ofEurope, like, just like things
that just have to go beneath thesurface for hundreds of years

(01:29:46):
until they eventually bubble upand yeah eventually we shoot,
somebody kills Princess Dianayeah, maybe the Titanic never
would have sank, maybe theTitanic would have never been a
thing, and then we wouldn't havethat movie because people
wouldn't have been coming here.

Speaker 1 (01:30:06):
Exactly.
Or it would have been a bunchof convicts on the Titanic and
they all would have drowned inthe Arctic and no one would have
cared.

Speaker 2 (01:30:17):
That's 500 fewer meals.
We need to provide those guys.

Speaker 1 (01:30:23):
I got a couple other things.
Comedy wouldn't be that great,just in general.
British humor I'm not a fan ofI don't know if you are, john,
but I think it stinks.
You got the UK version of theOffice versus the US version of
the Office.
I think the US version isimmensely better.
I think Ricky Gervais is one ofthe least funny men in the

(01:30:45):
world in my opinion.
That's just me.
I don't like British humor.
I don't think it's funny.
Craig Ferguson another exampleof somebody who's very unfunny
to me.
And just in general, I thinkcomedy although comedy now is
pretty in the dumps in myopinion.
Since Trump became president,everyone and back in 2016,
everyone's too preoccupied withthat nonsense that they're not

(01:31:07):
being fun, or everyone losttheir imagination and now
everyone's like John out there.
So comedy would stink and foodwould stink.
We wouldn't have barbecue.
Think about that.
We'd probably be cooking upfish and chips on the 4th of
July, as opposed to cooking upsome ribs with burgers and

(01:31:27):
steaks.

Speaker 2 (01:31:29):
Well, yeah, that wouldn't be because we wouldn't
have pushed into the West toactually graze those lands with
cattle.
Yep, but fish is good for youit would be High in mercury.

Speaker 3 (01:31:42):
High in mercury still Well, no, they wouldn't be if
we didn't industrialize as fastand there wouldn't be as much
mercury in the water.

Speaker 2 (01:31:47):
Could there be Mercury 3 still?
Well, no, there wouldn't be.
If we didn't industrialize thisfast, then there wouldn't be as
much Mercury in the water.
It's true, man, this butterflyis going all up and down.
Yeah, I tell you, what do youthink?
I still think.

Speaker 4 (01:32:01):
New England would be.

Speaker 1 (01:32:01):
Now, what did your work, what did your prep work
get you to about how life wouldbe today?
That was one of the assignmentsthat you were given, so I
assume you did it yeah, I thinkuh I think it would be fun if we
both were able to bringopinions to this about royal

(01:32:22):
family.

Speaker 2 (01:32:22):
I don't know if the parliament keep, keep it fun.

Speaker 1 (01:32:26):
No one cares about what parliament's like.

Speaker 2 (01:32:31):
You know we have to drive on the other side of the
road.
That's a good one.

Speaker 1 (01:32:36):
I don't know if I would like that it's fine.

Speaker 2 (01:32:38):
It's not the end of the world.
It takes some getting used tobut it's fine.
But you have to if you drivemanual.

Speaker 1 (01:32:43):
I was going to say I don't know if I'd be able to
shift with my left arm.
I'm not coordinated at all.

Speaker 2 (01:32:47):
You probably have still manual transmission.
Don't the British drive a lotof stick shift too?
Or is that just likecontinental Europeans?

Speaker 1 (01:33:00):
When you're driving a manual car and your driver's
side is on the right side of thecar, so your shifter's on the
left Is the clutch still.
You're shifting with your lefthand.
Is the clutch still the leftpedal and are the gears in the
same?
Are they still like left toright or are they right to left?

Speaker 2 (01:33:26):
So it's like an Arabic setup.

Speaker 1 (01:33:30):
You're reading right to left, um I mean definitely
not the same thing, but kind ofhow would our teeth be?

Speaker 2 (01:33:38):
dental hygiene?
That's I mean we have fluoridein the water.

Speaker 1 (01:33:47):
Yeah, I don't know.
Did they ever They've improveddental stuff in England?
I'm sure at this point?
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:33:56):
But if we're just looking into stereotypes yeah,
tea and crimpets, I think tea.
Let's just say More tea thancoffee, you think.
British East India Company teacomes back online following the
Boston Tea Party.
We can only then still buy fromIndia.

Speaker 1 (01:34:15):
Here's you in India again.
So you think we won't be moretea than coffee.

Speaker 2 (01:34:20):
I think we'd be a little more tea-centric yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:34:23):
Then the coffee business would be struggling,
which would hurt Hawaii, whichwould even Hawaii probably
wouldn't even be a thing.

Speaker 2 (01:34:32):
Hawaii Coffee, more bananas and other fruits, I
think coffee is Hawaii's biggestexport.

Speaker 1 (01:34:40):
Surprisingly, I think , hawaii's economy depends on
its export of tropical plantsand products such as coffee,
pineapples and papaya.
Boom, the Observatory ofEconomic Complexity.

Speaker 2 (01:34:58):
We wouldn't have Italian food.
We wouldn't have Italian foodbecause the Italian unification
would have happened, forcing allthese Italian migrants to come
over.
So, yeah, we wouldn't haveitalian food.
It'd be very bland and it wouldbe more like puritan.
I think it would be even worsethan like what british food.
What we think of british foodnow?
New englanders ate some nastystuff back, like they literally

(01:35:22):
had all the fresh fish aroundthem and they still ate like
porridge.
Yeah, I.

Speaker 1 (01:35:26):
I just think food would be really bad.

Speaker 4 (01:35:27):
They still like willingly decided to eat crappy
food.

Speaker 2 (01:35:30):
Yeah, it would be bad , but we presumably.
If they were still in India, wewould have spices to make the
food taste better.
Sure.

Speaker 1 (01:35:38):
But it still would stink.
Why do they have bland food ifthey, if they like their food
stinks Like what's your favoriteBritish dish?

Speaker 2 (01:35:50):
I get probably fish and chips, which is fine.

Speaker 1 (01:35:55):
I like shepherd's pie , depending on what's in it.
I consider that more of anattack of an Irish influence.
I would think.
Guns scones, they're British,they're not French.
Iones, they're british, they'renot french I think they're
british.

Speaker 2 (01:36:15):
When I think of scones, I think of a place of
origin, united kingdom.

Speaker 1 (01:36:20):
A little clotted cream did you know shepherd's
pie is supposed to be made fromlamb?

Speaker 2 (01:36:27):
that makes sense, yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:36:28):
It does, but I've never had it with lamb have you,
I think.
I've only had it with groundbeef.
I'm not a huge lamb fan.
I would eat it.

Speaker 2 (01:36:37):
I think there would be more lamb in our diets if we
were still British, yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:36:44):
Maybe I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:36:46):
We don't have a lot of lamb in america, that we'd be
importing it, I guess, or doyou think we'd have more lamb?

Speaker 2 (01:36:52):
like, I think, just lamb would be in our diet.

Speaker 1 (01:36:54):
That would, instead of maybe but I'm saying, like
raising lamb, would that be moreof a thing?

Speaker 2 (01:36:59):
yeah, I think so yeah , food would suck.

Speaker 1 (01:37:03):
Food would suck.
Food would suck big time.
Last thing I have here, john,for your last thoughts would we
be better off had Britain wonthe War of Independence and we
were still under their control?
I have here, I think, quotesfrom you when we did our

(01:37:25):
pre-show, saying I'm listeningto founding fathers saying the
same thing 30 years after thewar.
Thanks a lot, andrew jackson.
What did you mean by that, doyou think?

Speaker 2 (01:37:36):
that people were basically saying that we left
one form of tyranny to go into.
A lot of americans would havesaid we left one form of tyranny
that was at least an ocean awayand we traded it for a tyranny
that was right on our backs,back door.
I'm probably still saying thatnow.
The American government,federal government and all the

(01:37:58):
regulation that came with it andwhen I say the 30 year comment
I meant very soon thereafterpeople were like this whole
union thing isn't going to workout because we have way too
different and not even 30 years,like we're talking.
Like six years into Washington'spresidency there were people
saying we need to get out ofthis thing.
Then the war of 1812, newEngland was like we got to get

(01:38:21):
out of this thing.
But we only remember when theSouth said we got to get out of
this thing.
Um, because they actually didNot.
If you ask the radicalRepublicans, that's what I meant
by that Andrew Jackson comment,that Andrew Jackson was about
him and the force bill forcingthe tariff on South Carolina and

(01:38:43):
kind of leading, kind of beingthe the pro.
What do you call it?
Kind of leading, kind of beingthe pro, what do you call it?
Kind of the beginnings of theimperial presidency and imperial
government within the UnitedStates.
Now we have the American empire, because empire has to grow and
consume and grow and it doesn'treally check itself until it

(01:39:09):
wrecks itself.
Would it be better, genuinelyspeaking, uh?

Speaker 1 (01:39:17):
you.
Your answer is yes, I cananswer for you.
You would love it.
You would love it.
You'd be waking up watchingwatching Paddington, waking up
for the royal weddings.
You would just put your fancyhat on.

Speaker 4 (01:39:32):
People are already doing that.
You would do it, people arealready doing that.

Speaker 1 (01:39:35):
You would do it more.
So you personally would bedoing it.
You refrain from it becauseit's not part of the culture.
But if you were given off forthat, you'd be having a little
tea party with all your littlefriends, waking up at like 4
o'clock in the morning to watchthe royal wedding I know that's
what you would be doing or thefunerals.

Speaker 2 (01:40:02):
Be a little more free trade for what it's worth.

Speaker 1 (01:40:06):
I don't know.
I guess that's all we got here.
We left it with.

Speaker 2 (01:40:12):
I guess the final thoughts is john thinks that we
will be better off if we wereunder british rule, all things
considered it's under thecurrent situation with limited
states rights that we're seeingand the use of the power of the
central government, federalgovernment over the lives of

(01:40:35):
citizens across these 50 states.
I think it's at least anargument that could be, had.
I would rather keep my parentsthousands of miles away, not
know what I'm up to, than ifthey're right next door.

Speaker 1 (01:40:55):
All right, there you go.
Final thoughts from John.

Speaker 2 (01:40:58):
Um, that's all we have Hope you guys enjoyed this,
we think.

Speaker 1 (01:41:02):
I think that went pretty well.
It was pretty fun.
Um, it was a nice little testto do this with something that
we might be more familiar with,and then maybe we can go into
some other options here of otherwhat-ifs.
One of my favorite what-ifs isif the Beatles never formed,
apparently Iggy Pop would havebeen a very popular band.

(01:41:22):
Iggy Pop and the Stooges,according to these Brits that
wrote this magazine.
So not quite sure why.
Iggy Pop and the Stooges,according to these Brits that
wrote this magazine.
So not quite sure why Iggy Popwould have benefited the most
from the Beatles never forming.
But hey, I'm sure he's readingthis thing.
Being like man, I am so close.

Speaker 3 (01:41:39):
I guess we know what he's doing if he gets a time
machine because he's going backto Liverpool and in 1959 dude,
that would be.

Speaker 4 (01:41:46):
There's a move, there's a Ted and there's a,
there's a Bill, and because he'sgoing back to Liverpool in 1959
.

Speaker 1 (01:41:48):
Dude, that would be.
There's a move.
There's a Bill and Ted'sExcellent Adventure, bill and
Ted's Excellent Adventure withIggy Pop.
They all, the three of them.
Hey, iggy, where do you want togo?
To Liverpool, liverpool.

Speaker 2 (01:42:02):
Oh cool, because we're supposed to go back to
like 1776 to make the Britishwin the war.
But yeah sure, we'll just gowith you instead, so you can
become more popular.

Speaker 1 (01:42:11):
I think it was a good test.
I think it was fun.

Speaker 2 (01:42:14):
I liked it, I enjoyed .

Speaker 1 (01:42:15):
I hope our fans enjoyed it too and I guess, make
sure you like, share andsubscribe and shoot us a note
over at nailinghistorypod atgmailcom or send us a text
message.
Just click that link.
In the description it says sendus a text message.

(01:42:37):
You click that link.
Don't delete anything.
That auto Something's going toauto-populate into the text box.
Don't delete it.
Just start typing from thereand then we'll get your text.

Speaker 2 (01:42:52):
Give us a what-if scenario.

Speaker 1 (01:42:56):
Or let us know if you think we'd be better off, or
what did we miss?
What do you think?
What's a different butterflythat could have been an effect?
Name another butterfly that wemissed.
Or if you think you'd be betteroff, or a what if scenario that
you'd like us to cover, and ifit's in this magazine or

(01:43:18):
whatever you want to call thisthing that we have, we might do
it.
If it's not, it might be tough.

Speaker 2 (01:43:26):
We look forward to hearing from you guys.
Pins and needles, please textus, but until then, stay curious
let us know what you want tohear, just let us know, we'll
talk.

Speaker 4 (01:43:56):
I got hairy legs.
Come on, man, and we say bye,bye.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}132 Alternative History Vol. 1–The Butterfly Effect: Britain's Victory in the American Revolution

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes

132 Alternative History Vol. 1–The Butterfly Effect: Britain's Victory in the American Revolution

Crime Junkie