Was America's Revolution Good for Britain?

One of the recent additions to my blogroll is Boston 1775. It's written by J.L. Bell, a Massachusetts writer who specializes in the Revolution in Boston. He posts some really fascinating stuff, and today's entry is a response to this New York Times opinion piece by General Sir Michael Rose.

Rose's thesis is that it was good for Britain (and the rest of the world) in the long run that she made peace with the fledgling United States when she did. This allowed her to rebuild her army and navy, focus on her domestic industrialization and her far-flung empire, and prepare her to take on the military juggernaut of Napoleon's French Empire. It's a complex topic, and cannot even begin to be addressed adequately in a two-page essay, but Rose raises a few interesting questions and makes some good points.

His analogy comparing the U.S.'s current situation in Iraq with that of Britain in the North American colonies is a facile and flawed one, and his statement of a "strong possiblity" that the U.S. will have to set aside its position as world superpower is a pretty bold assumption without supplying any real evidence.

Some interesting food for thought, however, and I never really considered the Revolution's effect on Britain's military strength vis-a-vis her future wars with Bonaparte. These "what ifs" of history are always interesting. Bell has some good reactions to the piece. Check out Boston 1775 if you have any interest in U.S. history, good writing, and quality historical analysis.