TEH AMERICAN REVOLOOTION

[Eddie Teach]

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.

Historically, Britain managed to keep out of continental wars for nearly a century(I'm not counting Crimea as one). The separation of the US from Britain and Mexico from Spain made that outcome far more probable.

[jimmy olsen]

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?

Without French intervention into the American revolution France won't go bankrupt and the French revolution would be postponed a while. There wouldn't be the Napoleonic Wars as we know them.

Unless some other CB popped up, there probably wouldn't be another war between Britain and France following the Seven Years War until American settlers started settling in large numbers on the Mississippi and tension builds over control over the river and New Orleans.

[alfred russel]

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.

That isn't true. A major motivation of the expedition was to find navigatable rivers across the continent--there wasn't complete ignorance of the area, it was largely a wilderness that had not been effectively mapped.

[jimmy olsen]

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.

Historically, Britain managed to keep out of continental wars for nearly a century(I'm not counting Crimea as one). The separation of the US from Britain and Mexico from Spain made that outcome far more probable.

What's to stop the colonists from dragging Britain into a war with Spain like they did with France?

[alfred russel]

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.

To effectively gain control of the population. That is different than gaining the territory in a peace treaty, which in any event wouldn't be signed for over a decade.

[Razgovory]

I simply dislike revolutions.  It would be seem imprudent to risk throwing away a good life (life in the colonies was better then most places in Europe) for the sake of a possible American Republic.

[jimmy olsen]

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.

That isn't true. A major motivation of the expedition was to find navigatable rivers across the continent--there wasn't complete ignorance of the area, it was largely a wilderness that had not been effectively mapped.

You don't have to occupy the entire territory. All you have to do is seize New Orleans. The Royal Navy controls the seas. There's really no way that French could contest this.

[jimmy olsen]

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.

To effectively gain control of the population. That is different than gaining the territory in a peace treaty, which in any event wouldn't be signed for over a decade.

By that measure the French didn't have control of the territory either.

[Eddie Teach]

What's to stop the colonists from dragging Britain into a war with Spain like they did with France?

Well, for one thing their interests were more spread out in 1850 than in 1750.

[jimmy olsen]

What's to stop the colonists from dragging Britain into a war with Spain like they did with France?

Well, for one thing their interests were more spread out in 1850 than in 1750.

British North America would also be fantastically more valuable to them in this scenario. Whether the Americans have MPs in London or their own Parliament in Philadelphia their political and economic power within the Empire would be constantly raising.

[alfred russel]

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?

A few reasons:

1) why didn't the UK/Canada acquire Alaska? Why didn't the UK/commonwealth gain any territory in the New World after 1776? I'd argue that the British parliament was less interested in such matters compared to Americans, as it wasn't in their own self interest to the same degree. I think this would make less likely land grabs such as the Spanish American war.
2) See the declaration of independence for a take on the British government's policies in 1776:
"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. "
3) The favoring of British commercial rights over those in the new world would retard economic development (this is a big one)
4) The british took a less harsh indian policy, which would slow expansion
5) An association with the British empire could slow immigration--for example, from Europe during the continental period and from Ireland during later periods.
6) I can only imagine that as the balance of power transferred to the colonies from the UK, there would be attempts to counteract that within the UK
7) The observation that among all of the British colonies that did not secede from the empire, none can come close to the population, national income, or ability to project power as the United States.
8) This is a big one for me--the British government in the late 18th/early 19th century were a bunch of overindulged aristocratic douchebags who were not concerned with facilitating rapid economic development on another continent.

[Oexmelin]

That isn't true. A major motivation of the expedition was to find navigatable rivers across the continent--there wasn't complete ignorance of the area, it was largely a wilderness that had not been effectively mapped.

I am not sure what your point is. On the one hand, you can have control (regardless of what you understand control to be in colonial borderlands) without mapping. On the other hand, the ignorance of the American government of the territory does not equal the ignorance of the authorities in New Orleans or in Saint Louis over what type of territory they are dealing with. Lewis and Clark were wonderful propagandists who were writing their epic. I work with the people on the other side - the French, the Native guides, the St. Louis équipeurs, and it is funny to see when Lewis and Clark appear within my sources, portrayed as charming, but clueless individuals.

[Eddie Teach]

British North America would also be fantastically more valuable to them in this scenario. Whether the Americans have MPs in London or their own Parliament in Philadelphia their political and economic power within the Empire would be constantly raising.

Sure. But it's not like the 19th century Americans were unanimously in support of expansionist wars. Add to that that Spain with colonies intact is a tougher foe than independent Mexico as well as the entanglements in Asia and it's far from a given that the British take California.

[Neil]

Without French intervention into the American revolution France won't go bankrupt and the French revolution would be postponed a while. There wouldn't be the Napoleonic Wars as we know them.

Outlays for the support of the American Rebellion were far less important to the French financial situation than the massive structural problems in the French economy, the wars of Louis XV and French attempts to build a navy.

[Eddie Teach]

I believe though that the chances are in favour of things being better for the world with the British remaining united.

But you haven't really given any examples. How would the greater unity of the block offset the lesser demographic strength?