TEH AMERICAN REVOLOOTION

[Ed Anger]

Of course, if I suddenly found myself back in 1776, that means I'd have a time machine and I'd go back and ejaculate into the primordial ooze.

[alfred russel]

Lets just focus on this one: and the answer is no. Who were the american leaders: Washington, Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson are probably the most important. A lawyer, a scientist, and two relatively wealthy farmers. Not a single aristocratic title among them. I actually don't know of an american leader with a british aristocratic title, though a few people helicoptered in with them (some of which were invented).

'Lets just focus on this one'?
Odd how it just so happens to be the least important and the only where yoe u have the slightest of a point (aristocracy- though that wasn't what I was referring to). So the others are admitted to be wrong?

Titles mean very little. The ruling classes are the ruling classes. I couldn't care less if they're Lord Snooty Snot or Mr. Big Head. They both have equal tendancies towards keeping their own interests at heart and ignoring the population as a whole.

In addition, American merchants were prohibited from engaging in trade with half of the world, which was the exclusive domain of a British company. When a small group of colonists resorted to vandalism to protest this situation, the government responded by closing one of the major ports of country. Can you tell me the last time an english port was closed under similar circumstances?

I couldn't tell you the last time but I do recall one particular time- post civil war Sunderland was barred from engaging in the coal trade and all rights for that were given to Newcastle.
Other similar events were not too uncommon.


You're drastically missing the point here.
Were things unfair for the Americans at the time?- Yes. Its silly to say otherwise
If the Americas were to stay under Britain would the same situation continue for all time?- No. Its stupid to say otherwise.

I think there were about 8 different points, which are effectively 8 different arguments--the second class status of america is a common current running through all of them, so in the interest of not spending way too much time on each post, I'd rather just focus on one.

If things were unfair for Americans at the time, when would they be fixed? The 1830s? Later than that? By the 1830s America was well on its way to becoming the country it is today.

[alfred russel]

We know that's what happened, but we're talking about a situation in which a government led by Pitt formed some kind of compromise with the colonists thus preventing the revolution from occurring.

The British constitution had rotten boroughs and very limited suffrage--resulting in a british parliament from a narrow section of british society. For better or worse, they saw Americans as second class. There is no realistic possibility that America was going to get representation in parliament--it is even more extreme than proposing the passage of the reform bill in 1776. The parliament of the day would see that as even more of a calamity than losing the colonies.

Without representation, it isn't realistic to envision american interests being equally served in parliament (I don't think it is likely even with representation--at least until America gets a majority of seats). And that would mean that if america bears the cost of empire, then it gets a share of the benefits of empire.

[jimmy olsen]

We know that's what happened, but we're talking about a situation in which a government led by Pitt formed some kind of compromise with the colonists thus preventing the revolution from occurring.

The British constitution had rotten boroughs and very limited suffrage--resulting in a british parliament from a narrow section of british society. For better or worse, they saw Americans as second class. There is no realistic possibility that America was going to get representation in parliament--it is even more extreme than proposing the passage of the reform bill in 1776. The parliament of the day would see that as even more of a calamity than losing the colonies.

Without representation, it isn't realistic to envision american interests being equally served in parliament (I don't think it is likely even with representation--at least until America gets a majority of seats). And that would mean that if america bears the cost of empire, then it gets a share of the benefits of empire.

While I think that representation in the Parliament in London was infeasible simply due to technological constraints, I do think that it was possible for the evolution of an earlier proto-Dominion like state with a separate Parliament to emerge from the cauldron of the 7 years war and its aftermath.

[Siege]

Ok, this is not funny.

[saskganesh]

Make Quebec join.

I'm sure that would have worked out very well for you.

[saskganesh]

Why would immigrants not go to a British alligned 'US'?

Who knows? But historically, non-British subjects opted to go to independent countries like the US and Argentina over Canada and Australia.

that's certainly not true if you look at Canadian immigration.

America got more immigrants simply because it had more land to give away.

[Valmy]

I'm sure that would have worked out very well for you.

Of course it would.  You Canadians really missed out by not joining us.

[Valmy]

that's certainly not true if you look at Canadian immigration.

America got more immigrants simply because it had more land to give away.

It was because of our freedom!

[Grey Fox]

Make Quebec join.

I'm sure that would have worked out very well for you.

I don't know, no one can be sure. I just think it would have been worth it to try it out.

[Josquius]

I think there were about 8 different points, which are effectively 8 different arguments--the second class status of america is a common current running through all of them, so in the interest of not spending way too much time on each post, I'd rather just focus on one.

If things were unfair for Americans at the time, when would they be fixed? The 1830s? Later than that? By the 1830s America was well on its way to becoming the country it is today.

Considering there was a rebellion against things being bad in 1776 its clear the time was right around then. Before the 19th century tops.

[Sheilbh]

Why would someone with power and influence tied into remaining a loyal British subject join the revolutionaries?  It doesn't make sense.  Probably the closest would be... Charles Lee?  Unsure.

When a government indulges in tyranny then your ties to it as a 'loyal subject' are dissolved and you go all Tom Paine on them 

[Grallon]

Make Quebec join.

I'm sure that would have worked out very well for you.

I don't know, no one can be sure. I just think it would have been worth it to try it out.

And become a northern Louisiana? No thanx.




G.

[Valmy]

And become a northern Louisiana? No thanx.

Quebec would have imported tons of Carribean slaves?

[jimmy olsen]

And become a northern Louisiana? No thanx.

Quebec would have important tons of Carribean slaves?

As opposed to unimportant tons of Caribbean slaves?