TEH AMERICAN REVOLOOTION

[alfred russel]

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.

My point is that the area couldn't be military conquered. It was unoccupied in 1803 (or whenever we bought it), and it would be unoccupied at the conclusion of the Napoleonic wars as well. Would it be taken in its entirety and given to the UK? Maybe, but that isn't the only possible outcome. Would other powers be afraid that was concentrating too much power in the hands of the UK? Would the UK be concerned about losing control of much larger colonial possessions and fighting even more Indian wars?

Also, anyone saying Lewis and Clark were clueless is probably just a jealous fool. Those guys were badass, and I don't care if the French gave them a Michelin atlas guide of the area.

[Oexmelin]

3) The favoring of British commercial rights over those in the new world would retard economic development (this is a big one)

The British could care less about their commercial rights, at least in the 18th c. The British merchant position was already one of dominance, where the colonial merchant was already in debt based on the structure of the economy. One of their problem was the protection affored to the indebted colonial elite by the local assemblies (same people).

In many cases like this, you have to disentangle what the rhetoric of government people said about theoretical futures from what was the reality on the ground. What exactly were those colonial factories that were hampered by British colonial policies ?

4) The british took a less harsh indian policy, which would slow expansion

Again: how many years, and what kind of expansion ? Settlement or government control ?

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

That might indeed be one of the main political problem to resolve.

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.

Again, not quite true. Lots of efforts were made by the colonial lobbies to affect political outcomes, with great success in many cases. Including by interesting investors in colonial schemes. However, this had to be balanced, in Great Britain, with equally (or in many cases, even more) interesting investment schemes elsewhere. Then the question becomes: what would that have changed ? What were the government handouts in the early US that made it possible to jumpstart an economy the way you seem to think it was ?

[PDH]

If it means I would have to spell words with extra u's in them, I ain't joining the Brits.

[Oexmelin]

My point is that the area couldn't be military conquered. It was unoccupied in 1803 (or whenever we bought it), and it would be unoccupied at the conclusion of the Napoleonic wars as well. Would it be taken in its entirety and given to the UK? Maybe, but that isn't the only possible outcome. Would other powers be afraid that was concentrating too much power in the hands of the UK? Would the UK be concerned about losing control of much larger colonial possessions and fighting even more Indian wars?

Of course. That is why What Ifs are only interesting up to a very limited point. Diplomatically, the UK were isolated at the end of the Seven Years War, thanks to their success. What would have happened next ? Who knows ? Maybe the policy of ordered expansion and Native diplomacy is what would have yielded results in terms of control. Lewis and Clark didn't acheive much in term of control for the US either.

Also, anyone saying Lewis and Clark were clueless is probably just a jealous fool. Those guys were badass, and I don't care if the French gave them a Michelin atlas guide of the area.

I think Lewis and Clark are fascinating character in their own rights, but I do not see the necessity to study them as demi-gods out of their context, and their place in the American mythos has impaired that. You can treat them as personal heroes if you want as a citizen, but you can't expect a historian to do the same. Auguste Chouteau, whom I have studied, is very sympathetic about L&C and enjoys the time he welcomes them in his house, but I fail to see how he would be jealous of anything about them.

[alfred russel]

The British could care less about their commercial rights, at least in the 18th c.

Was the British East India Company a mythical organization? 18th century British government was deeply involved in commerce, in ways that favored the government, which happened to be located in Britain. The US, at least in its early years, was left with a government that was too weak to impose price controls or significant disruptions to the economy, but could use the collective wealth for internal improvements. The British government, by contrast, was able and willing to perform the former, can more likely to spend the latter in Britain.

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.

What were the government handouts in the early US that made it possible to jumpstart an economy the way you seem to think it was ?

I don't think a bunch of government handouts made this country's economy.

[jimmy olsen]

My point is that the area couldn't be military conquered. It was unoccupied in 1803 (or whenever we bought it), and it would be unoccupied at the conclusion of the Napoleonic wars as well. Would it be taken in its entirety and given to the UK? Maybe, but that isn't the only possible outcome. Would other powers be afraid that was concentrating too much power in the hands of the UK?

What the hell could they do about it? Britannia rules the waves and the Spaniards in Mexico can't project power north of the Rio Grande to the extent that Americans can across the Mississippi.

[alfred russel]

My point is that the area couldn't be military conquered. It was unoccupied in 1803 (or whenever we bought it), and it would be unoccupied at the conclusion of the Napoleonic wars as well. Would it be taken in its entirety and given to the UK? Maybe, but that isn't the only possible outcome. Would other powers be afraid that was concentrating too much power in the hands of the UK?

What the hell could they do about it? Britannia rules the waves and the Spaniards in Mexico can't project power north of the Rio Grande to the extent that Americans can across the Mississippi.

They could do nothing about it, other than say the largely uninhabited land belonged to someone else (uninhabited by white men, of course). Much like the claim France had on the land before the sale.

[Faeelin]

Was the British East India Company a mythical organization? 18th century British government was deeply involved in commerce, in ways that favored the government, which happened to be located in Britain. The US, at least in its early years, was left with a government that was too weak to impose price controls or significant disruptions to the economy, but could use the collective wealth for internal improvements. The British government, by contrast, was able and willing to perform the former, can more likely to spend the latter in Britain.

See, the thing is that in order to abort the Revolution, and not simply delay it, you have to come up with some sort of settlement which makes this infeasible.

Althoguh I have to say, pushing the Revolution back to the 1790s, such that the French Republic sends Napoleon Bonaparte to lead the Army of America, would be interesting.

[alfred russel]

I think Lewis and Clark are fascinating character in their own rights, but I do not see the necessity to study them as demi-gods out of their context, and their place in the American mythos has impaired that. You can treat them as personal heroes if you want as a citizen, but you can't expect a historian to do the same. Auguste Chouteau, whom I have studied, is very sympathetic about L&C and enjoys the time he welcomes them in his house, but I fail to see how he would be jealous of anything about them.

I don't have a shrine to Lewis and Clark in my home or anything, but they are important because:

a) they caught the imagination of the American public and became the first heroic american figures of what we now know as the west. It is really the start of the popular saga of the west that was so important for the rest of the century.
b) The spanish may have been wandering around parts of the territory centuries earlier, and the french as well. The indians were there for millenia. But the Lewis and Clark expedition were the first to put it into a cohesive framework for the american public and government, which is what actually integrated the territory. Like the vikings discovering the new world, or alfred russel wallace and evolution, being first isn't always most important.

[Josquius]

They could do nothing about it, other than say the largely uninhabited land belonged to someone else (uninhabited by white men, of course). Much like the claim France had on the land before the sale.

Then what?
They try and come in and invade it and Britain defends its land. The invaders lose.

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.

Alaska was a world away from anything British and complete insignificant. Why would they waste time trying anything there?
You're making the mistake here of projecting historical attitudes into a alternate history. Britain wasn't so big on westward expansion in our history because they reasoned a happy, friendly US was better than a few hundred more miles of N.American forest. With the US onside though....

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. "

You don't think that there could maybe be a slight bias there?

3) The favoring of British commercial rights over those in the new world would retard economic development (this is a big one)

How?
And how would this be different to actual history?

5) An association with the British empire could slow immigration--for example, from Europe during the continental period and from Ireland during later periods.

Why would people be put off by assosiation with the UK? Some people don't like the idea of the land of freedom and opportunity?
Why mention Ireland here especially? The idea that Ireland was occupied by the evil British and the poor Irish were just sitting there stewing away plotting their 'freedom'/escape to the Americas is generally Irish-American bollocks.

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

As there were attempts to stand against all changes historically. We call them conservatives.

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.

Come on, this one is utter nonsence as everyone has pointed out.

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.

And the early American leaders didn't tend that way too?

[Ed Anger]

Ugh, a world unified under the Union jack. Bad food, bad teeth and buggery.

Have you been to Britain recently? A lot of it is almost civilized.

Yes.

[citizen k]

I'd probably join once it's started.

Zanza: von Steuben?

[Faeelin]

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.

I think this is misleading. First, it assumes a Canada stretching from coast to coast is a given. It also ignores the assertive colonial lobbies which already existed in the 1750s. Look at Washington's visit to teh Ohio Country, for instance.

The idea that millions of Americans are going to be the equivalent of Quebec and Upper Canada is unlikely to me.

3) The favoring of British commercial rights over those in the new world would retard economic development (this is a big one)

On the other hand, there will be no interruption of links between London and America.

4) The british took a less harsh indian policy, which would slow expansion

Again, I guess my question is how much control would Britain maintain? And would it really be slower than OTL, where Britain supported the directly, as they did from 1775 onwardS?

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.

Hrm. I don't think that's fair. Australia's a desert on the other side of the world, and Canada is less developed than America was.

[Sophie Scholl]

The old me would have joined up immediately and helped take Fort Ticonderoga with Ethan Allen, lead an amazingly successful career fighting for the Americans before becoming disillusioned over the politics and joining the British.  The new me?  I'd join up with Walter and John Butler and Joseph Brant.

[Fate]

We should have remained a colony, or at the very least, leveraged our "victory" in order to gain normal representation in Parliament.