The 13 British American Colonies could have become a Federation with a Constitutional Monarchy

Before I begin I would like to extend some cordiality to my opponent. I think this is an interesting topic, and I respect his opinions. ***First rebuttal of my opponent's contentions:*** 1) On the argument: "The pressure of the Spanish threat to the south, and Aboriginal threat would favor the colonies unionizing for defense." It is important to note that the colonies at the time were fiercely competitive with one another. In fact, most wanted to become individual independent countries. To that end, most colonies were not even in favor of fighting against Britain even as the troops landed on the mainland - it took the radicals to rally the army together. Additionally, the colonies as apposed to the provinces of Canada, were inhabited for a few key reasons. The first was because of a lack of opportunity in Britain, second because of a sentiment of British oppression, and third because of ani-monarchical sentiments. Those that were rallying to fight were actually more interested in gaining the independence of their respective colonies than any coalition of colonies. It wasn't until the Join-Or-Die movement that the colonies began to coalesce. Because of this, an American parliament would have run into high resistance up until the moment that the colonies were invaded. And by that time, American nationalists were so eager to distance themselves from British governance that they scrapped any pretense of parliament in favor of the bicameral system. A few were in favor of a parliament, but for many it was too indirect of a democracy - this is why the US prides itself on its checks and balances. 2) On the argument: "The domestic political structure would have been in place". The political structure at the time of revolution was actually very fragmented. Each colony was printing their own currency, and the national currency was deemed worthless by the public. Their wasn't even a way to delegate funding between the colonies which was reflected in a complete lack of a tax revenue stream and a lack of funding for the continental army, which at some points was starving and dying of disease, while rich merchants within the colonies continued their daily lives. This contrast demonstrates the disunity that the colonies had. 3) On the argument: "The Idea was supported by Benjamin Franklin". Indeed the idea was considered by the colonies, but the clash between loyalists and revolutionaries was so great, that harbors became riot zones. If the loyalists had outnumbered the revolutionaries a federation may have been formed. However, as stated earlier, most colonies desired to be independent nations of their own. ***This brings me to my own contentions:*** 1) The cause of the union of the colonies was the war. As mentioned earlier, the colonies struggled between the clash of the loyalists and nationalists up until the British invaded. Not until the fighting began did the Join-Or-Die Movement begin, and a national currency get minted. Still yet, some colonies remained loyal while others resisted heavily. However, history shows that nothing unites a people like an invasion on their homeland which can be seen in unification of the Ottoman Empire after the brutal crusades, the consolidation of the regions of China after being invaded by Japan, the forming of the Soviet Union after successfully coming back from a German invasion. The same goes for the States, which were otherwise seriously fragmented. 2) If it weren't for the invasion by the British, the colonies would have formed individual countries, rather than a union. An example of what the states could have looked like would be the countries that were formerly the British African Colonies, and Middle Eastern Colonies. Each colony was populated by a majority of people completely apposed to British rule, but without the success of the American revolution, became fragmented countries whose borders contained clashing cultures. This could have happened to the states, as the US colonies were founded for vastly different reasons, and by different cultures. Massachusetts for example was founded originally for religious freedom, while South Carolina was founded with the intent of farming cash crops. Some of these differences could be said to have helped divide the north and south in the Civil War with the contrast of the North quickly modernizing, and the South relying on agriculture. 3) The reason that Canada worked out this way, was because of the lower and less dense population compared to the States. Canada at the time of its unification before the US Civil War, did not have the dense population centers that the colonies had, and were much easier for the British government to control and appease. The colonies on the other hand, were a logistical nightmare for the crown. Even if Britain managed to install an American Parliament, it would have slowly begun to fracture, as British governance would break down over time as it did with so many other colonies. This would return the colonies to sort out their differences, and such a union would probably not have been able to survive. Remember, at the time of the civil war, gangs in urban centers required military action to challenge, and riots often caused far reaching instability. A civil war would have shattered the fragile union which would have never been tested by decades of politically refining autonomy, and another war with Britain to hone its governing and logistical capabilities. *Conclusion) Because of the lack of unity among the individual colonial governments, and the lack of domestic and economic cohesion, the colonies would have formed individual countries in the absence of a British invasion. However, because of the British invasion, the colonies were forced to unionize and distance themselves from Britain significantly more radically than was intended. In the case of a unionization, an American parliament would have dissolved with the British empire because of a denser and more logistically challenging population.