TEH AMERICAN REVOLOOTION

[Sheilbh]

Disagree--just completing the outlines of a map of the territory was a major undertaking after the purchase. There was no way to militarily seize that much territory.

Would you necessarily need to seize all the territory to, effectively, seize the territory?

[Eddie Teach]

In the short term American independence was good for Britain. They no longer had to pay for the upkeep of the colonies but still got to trade with them. I'm looking at a longer term what's good for the world picture though.

You're assuming that American growth would have followed historical patterns while our interests would have coincided more closely with Britain's. I contend that American growth would have been hampered and that historically British and American interests weren't very far off. My point isn't that things like the opening of Japan wouldn't have been done, it's that they were done because we had similar interests.

[Faeelin]

Disagree--just completing the outlines of a map of the territory was a major undertaking after the purchase. There was no way to militarily seize that much territory.

Surely all you have to do is seize New Orleans and St. Louis? It wasn't a densely populated region, after all.

[Faeelin]

The Brits did invade Argentina and Uruguay.  The Reconquista which was almost entirely local because they couldn't expect Spanish support is seen as one of the first and most important expressions of an Argentine identity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_Río_de_la_Plata

Yes, sorry, I wasn't being clear.

[Oexmelin]

Ordered = prevented, or at least slowed.

I am not sure. People imagine that hordes of settlers were waiting in line that the border be opened, to pour into «savage land». This was not so. You have to distinguish settlement pattern, density and government control, which are three very different things on the borderlands. What the British wanted was to make sure to develop lands to avoid open conflict with the Natives or at least, engage willfully in those it chose. Not to make perfectly patterned squares out of the land.

[alfred russel]

Lets keep in mind the scope of American expansion westward. There are more Californians than Canadians, and more Texans than Australians.

[Oexmelin]

Disagree--just completing the outlines of a map of the territory was a major undertaking after the purchase. There was no way to militarily seize that much territory.

Again, a misconception. Maps existed. People knew the terrain. American mythos has seized on the figures of Lewis & Clark, but their guides were Natives and French voyageurs. The key to seizing the land was to work up Native alliances, which was mandatory if you wanted to exploit the fur trade anyway - again, as the NorthWest Company, The Laclède & Chouteau, the Astor Fur Trading amply demonstrated.

[Josquius]

You're assuming that American growth would have followed historical patterns while our interests would have coincided more closely with Britain's. I contend that American growth would have been hampered and that historically British and American interests weren't very far off. My point isn't that things like the opening of Japan wouldn't have been done, it's that they were done because we had similar interests.

No I'm not.
I agree the US would be nowhere near as strong as it was in actual history.
This though would not be bad for the US and would still lead to a considerably greater British and world whole overall.

American and British interests not being far off- yeah pretty much. The US generally though was more inwardly focused with them and less pushy in foreign policy about getting them through.
I imagine this working out quite interesting for the British once they get India; rather than two main pillars of empire you instead have the 3.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying history has worked out bad with the existence of the US, the British have still 'won history', I believe though that the chances are in favour of things being better for the world with the British remaining united.

Lets keep in mind the scope of American expansion westward. There are more Californians than Canadians, and more Texans than Australians.

And there are more Germans than Swedish.
What does this mean?

[I Killed Kenny]

Surely Louisiana would have been seized by the British at around the same time, or before, the purchase happened?

It is most probable.

Disagree--just completing the outlines of a map of the territory was a major undertaking after the purchase. There was no way to militarily seize that much territory.

There weren't many french troops in louisiana so it would not be that difficult.

[Oexmelin]

Surely all you have to do is seize New Orleans and St. Louis? It wasn't a densely populated region, after all.

Yes, that's mostly it (New Orleans and its wider region): add a little bit at Natchitoches, right next to the traditionnal border with New Mexico and the results of the Mexican War might have happened sooner (or not, since we tend to underestimate the strength of the Spanish American colonies).

[Faeelin]

Lets keep in mind the scope of American expansion westward. There are more Californians than Canadians, and more Texans than Australians.

Yes, but you haven't explained why that would change. Again, it's not like people didn't immigrate to the Thirteen Colonies. And given the choice between Canada and Ohio, why would people head north?

[Oexmelin]

There weren't many french troops in louisiana so it would not be that difficult.

No, not much, but again the key here are Native alliances and capacity to project, not necessarily the amount of troops. In that regard, the French had strong alliances, but little capacity to project troops, as New Orleans is difficult to reach by sea (and the rebellions in 19th c. gave them a hard time).

[jimmy olsen]

One would think you'd be a little bit happier about the anglicization of millions of immigrants from all over Europe. No American Revolution means you guys have a slightly richer version of Canada/Australia.

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

Would the British have been as willing and able to provide the "manifest destiny"? A contributing factor to the revolution was reluctance to allow settlers to move west, and the Louisiana Purchase would not have happened had the colonies still been british. The Mexican War may not have happened either.

There is also the factor of economic development: would the British Parliament, without American representation, have promoted policies as favorable to American growth? Would America get sucked into the European wars Britain fought, in addition to the US Civil War that almost certainly would have still occurred?

First, for America to stay British there would have to be a parliament headed by someone like Pitt who would have a favorable policy to the colonies, so I think settlement would occur as normal.

Surely Louisiana would have been overrun in the next war with France.

Furthermore, with no US independence, Spain would hang on to it's colonies much longer, so the old west would likely be taken as well in one of the upcoming general European wars.

[Neil]

Furthermore, with no US independence, Spain would hang on to it's colonies much longer, so the old west would likely be taken as well in one of the upcoming general European wars.

How would the lack of a United States prevent the disintegration of Spanish authority in the New World during the Napoleonic Wars?

[jimmy olsen]

A couple thoughts here. First, it's not a given that the Mexican War happen if you're trying to change history from 1776. But I will note that there's no reason for Britain not to want a Pacific coastline; there were fears they'd grab it historically, after all.

Moreover, it seems hard to imagine that Britain would not grab Louisiana, given their interest in the reason historically. As for western colonization.... the British weren't opposed to it, as such. They supported it; witness how the infamous Proclamation of 1763 was continually readjusted in the years leading up to the Revolution. 

My guess is that if you want to abort the Revolution, you need some sort of settlement with the colonies.

They certainly was a desire for a British west coast even after the revolution.

Which European Wars? And without hope of British support, why would the southern states consider seceding?

Arrogance for one thing.  And it depends on how much support they'd have, would the upper south including Kentucky, Missouri and Maryland go with them? Is there still some resentment about the government situation that they could exploit to attempt to spread their revolution to the North? There are a lot of factors, though I'd still think the Brits and the North would stomp them down.