Answer: It would definitely be different from what we recognize today
Explanation: the revolution of the 13 colonies basically started the united states, if the colonies decided to remain neutral they would have probably gained independence eventually, and they might even have merged with Canada in the time of their independence, in this case, it would still be an extremely alternate world from the world we know and love today, as the united states wouldn't be making any independent decisions anymore, and they would still be loyal to Britain and the queen.
Although you did not provide the scenarios, the answer would have to deal with African-americans not being granted citizenship even though they were freed, naturalized, or born within the US. Any African-American that would be denied would be a breach of the 14th amendment.
Answer:
Andrew Carnegie went a long way in creating a monopoly in the steel industry when J.P. Morgan bought his steel company and melded it into U.S. Steel.
I believe the fellow would be Shakespeare.
Hope this is accurate and helps!
Answer:
The ONE major difference between Wood’s and Bailyn’s historical interpretations of why the American colonies rebelled against the British is:
According to Wood, the American colonies rebelled and revolted out of reasoned principle. They had the mindset that they were "born heirs of freedom" and that freedom is their everyday life. While, according to Bailyn, the colonies rebelled and revolted due to the rise of conspirators who stood against their freedom.
Explanation:
Wood's and Bailey's historical interpretations of why the American colonies rebelled against the British can be seen from the excerpt. It's evident that their interpretations differ.
Wood revealed that the Americans didn't rebel due to suffering but due to a "reasoned principle". Whereas, Bailey interpreted it to be that the conspirators against the liberty propelled the revolt.