TEH AMERICAN REVOLOOTION

[alfred russel]

The french revolution is a fair point, and I have no argument with it. But while it may have increased the chance for continued unity, it highlights a reason unity was not in US interests--we would be sucked into a European war that didn't concern us.

[jimmy olsen]

The french revolution is a fair point, and I have no argument with it. But while it may have increased the chance for continued unity, it highlights a reason unity was not in US interests--we would be sucked into a European war that didn't concern us.

I think the conquest of Louisiana would have pleased Americans greatly.

[grumbler]

I'm curious as to why you think it would seem less desirable.

Events in 1789 started a world war that lasted for 25 years.  Support for the crown would have been strengthened by the threat, and the growth of British military power (and the crushing of French naval power) would have made the chances of success seem smaller.

[grumbler]

The french revolution is a fair point, and I have no argument with it. But while it may have increased the chance for continued unity, it highlights a reason unity was not in US interests--we would be sucked into a European war that didn't concern us.

Not in the American's short-term interests, perhaps, but in the longer term (1) the war would have given the Americans a cadre of trained regular soldiers and officers; (2) the war would have allowed American interests to be pushed in London, because the British would need to appease American interests, and (3) the eventual takeover of the British Empire by the American segment of it would have allowed the Americans to avert far more disastrous wars 'that didn't concern us" in 1861, 1914, and 1939.

[jimmy olsen]

The french revolution is a fair point, and I have no argument with it. But while it may have increased the chance for continued unity, it highlights a reason unity was not in US interests--we would be sucked into a European war that didn't concern us.

Not in the American's short-term interests, perhaps, but in the longer term (1) the war would have given the Americans a cadre of trained regular soldiers and officers; (2) the war would have allowed American interests to be pushed in London, because the British would need to appease American interests, and (3) the eventual takeover of the British Empire by the American segment of it would have allowed the Americans to avert far more disastrous wars 'that didn't concern us" in 1861, 1914, and 1939.

Louisiana at least would be seized during the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars, maybe Texas or Cuba as well. That's certainly in the Americans short term interest.

[alfred russel]

The french revolution is a fair point, and I have no argument with it. But while it may have increased the chance for continued unity, it highlights a reason unity was not in US interests--we would be sucked into a European war that didn't concern us.

Not in the American's short-term interests, perhaps, but in the longer term (1) the war would have given the Americans a cadre of trained regular soldiers and officers; (2) the war would have allowed American interests to be pushed in London, because the British would need to appease American interests, and (3) the eventual takeover of the British Empire by the American segment of it would have allowed the Americans to avert far more disastrous wars 'that didn't concern us" in 1861, 1914, and 1939.

I don't think that the British would have ever allowed the takeover of parliament by the American side, especially in the era before the 1830s reform act. But I don't know how fruitful it is to discuss counterfactual history 50+ years out from a major world event we are changing.

[jimmy olsen]

The french revolution is a fair point, and I have no argument with it. But while it may have increased the chance for continued unity, it highlights a reason unity was not in US interests--we would be sucked into a European war that didn't concern us.

Not in the American's short-term interests, perhaps, but in the longer term (1) the war would have given the Americans a cadre of trained regular soldiers and officers; (2) the war would have allowed American interests to be pushed in London, because the British would need to appease American interests, and (3) the eventual takeover of the British Empire by the American segment of it would have allowed the Americans to avert far more disastrous wars 'that didn't concern us" in 1861, 1914, and 1939.

I don't think that the British would have ever allowed the takeover of parliament by the American side, especially in the era before the 1830s reform act. But I don't know how fruitful it is to discuss counterfactual history 50+ years out from a major world event we are changing.

Whether or not there would actually be Americans in Parliament in London, or there was a separate Imperial Parliament in North America there would be a lot more political pressure within the British parliament to open up suffrage if the Americans are still in the Empire and thriving with much broader suffrage. A Reform Act would likely happen earlier.

EDIT: Anyways I don't think the US population passed the UK's until 1850 IIRC.

[Barrister]

Whether or not there would actually be Americans in Parliament in London, or there was a separate Imperial Parliament in North America there would be a lot more political pressure within the British parliament to open up suffrage if the Americans are still in the Empire and thriving with much broader suffrage. A Reform Act would likely happen earlier.

EDIT: Anyways I don't think the US population passed the UK's until 1850 IIRC.

An Imperial Parliament seems unlikely, since no such institution ever came into being in the British Empire.  Even today such far-flung portions of the Empire like the Falklands or Gibraltar have no representation in Westminster.

The more likely path of compromise is the one that was actually followed by the British Empire - gradual devolution of powers to the colonies, and leading to the grouping of individual colonies into larger confederations, such as happened in Australia and Canada.

The one problem with this model is that devolution was authorized in London with knowledge of what had happened in 1776.  Whether London would have been as accomodating in a world without the American Revolution is up for debate.

[jimmy olsen]

Whether or not there would actually be Americans in Parliament in London, or there was a separate Imperial Parliament in North America there would be a lot more political pressure within the British parliament to open up suffrage if the Americans are still in the Empire and thriving with much broader suffrage. A Reform Act would likely happen earlier.

EDIT: Anyways I don't think the US population passed the UK's until 1850 IIRC.

An Imperial Parliament seems unlikely, since no such institution ever came into being in the British Empire.  Even today such far-flung portions of the Empire like the Falklands or Gibraltar have no representation in Westminster.

The more likely path of compromise is the one that was actually followed by the British Empire - gradual devolution of powers to the colonies, and leading to the grouping of individual colonies into larger confederations, such as happened in Australia and Canada.

That's not what I meant by Imperial Parliament, that's a late 19th century idea. It's what Pitt called his proposed Parliament for British North America IIRC.

[Sheilbh]

Events in 1789 started a world war that lasted for 25 years.  Support for the crown would have been strengthened by the threat, and the growth of British military power (and the crushing of French naval power) would have made the chances of success seem smaller.

I don't know that the French Revolution necessarily would.  I mean the late 18th/early 19th century was the high water mark of English radicalism and oppressive government.  In Ireland you have a number of revolts and radicals roaming round on a non-sectarian basis.  I think that the combination of increasing political radicalism and oppressive government could have hugely hurt support for the crown.

It certainly did in this country:

An old, mad, blind, despised, and dying king,--
Princes, the dregs of their dull race, who flow
Through public scorn,--mud from a muddy spring,--
Rulers who neither see, nor feel, nor know,
But leech-like to their fainting country cling,
Till they drop, blind in blood, without a blow,--
A people starved and stabbed in the untilled field,--
An army, which liberticide and prey
Makes as a two-edged sword to all who wield,--
Golden and sanguine laws which tempt and slay;
Religion Christless, Godless--a book sealed;
A Senate,--Time's worst statute unrepealed,--
Are graves, from which a glorious Phantom may
Burst, to illumine our tempestous day.

[Viking]

Had the colonies remained during the Napoleonic war I think we'd have seen colonial energies directed at conquering the Louisiana Territory followed by Texas, the bulk of Mexico and the entire Caribbean. The only real question is where they would have stopped and IF Britain had even considered trying to stop them from taking the rest when Spain switched sides in May 1808.

[jimmy olsen]

Had the colonies remained during the Napoleonic war I think we'd have seen colonial energies directed at conquering the Louisiana Territory followed by Texas, the bulk of Mexico and the entire Caribbean. The only real question is where they would have stopped and IF Britain had even considered trying to stop them from taking the rest when Spain switched sides in May 1808.

Hard to see them projecting much power south or west of the Rio Grande, but in the west sending out a small cavalry unit to show the flag and snap up undefended Spanish settlements might be enough.

No telling when or if Spain would switch sides in such an alternate war.

As for the Caribbean the Colonists I'd imagine would really want Cuba.

[Valmy]

Louisiana at least would be seized during the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars, maybe Texas or Cuba as well. That's certainly in the Americans short term interest.

Would the French Revolution have even happened without the American Revolution?

[jimmy olsen]

Louisiana at least would be seized during the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars, maybe Texas or Cuba as well. That's certainly in the Americans short term interest.

Would the French Revolution have even happened without the American Revolution?

Even if it hadn't the Americans would have started a war with Spain over New Orleans in the 1790s or 1800s anyways and that would have dragged France into it.

[Valmy]

Even if it hadn't the Americans would have started a war with Spain over New Orleans in the 1790s or 1800s anyways and that would have dragged France into it.

Naked British aggression?  Those limey bastards!