Languish.org

Poll inspired by the surprising number of Americans I've seen with Tory leanings recently.

Foreigner - Neutral

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them....

The Sons of Liberty.

All fucking monarchists must fucking hang.

I join the tories in a doomed effort to keep Ontario french.

Death to traitors.

I'd torture Josq's ancestors. I'd catch them trying to suck their own dick, making them easy to capture.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

Tim has just tainted America.

tldr

Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2009, 09:50:38 AM
Tim has just tainted America.

He's 27 years old. :contract:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 16, 2009, 09:44:56 AM
All fucking monarchists must fucking hang.

Your adherance to treason is amusing, given your condemnation of the Confederates.

On the spot at the time in the situation I'd probably lean towards the rebels but I wouldn't outright support them.
With hindsight though its supporting the government all the way.

Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2009, 09:52:42 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 16, 2009, 09:44:56 AM
All fucking monarchists must fucking hang.

Your adherance to treason is amusing, given your condemnation of the Confederates.

Apples and inbred oranges, you flanneled furriner.

I'd probably join once it's started.

Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 09:53:13 AM
On the spot at the time in the situation I'd probably lean towards the rebels but I wouldn't outright support them.
With hindsight though its supporting the government all the way.

:rolleyes:

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.

God Save the King.  :bowler:

Quote from: Caliga on August 16, 2009, 10:16:48 AM
God Save the King.  :bowler:

Limey.  <_<

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 16, 2009, 10:14:18 AM
:rolleyes:

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'?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 16, 2009, 10:00:26 AM

Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2009, 09:52:42 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 16, 2009, 09:44:56 AM
All fucking monarchists must fucking hang.

Your adherance to treason is amusing, given your condemnation of the Confederates.

Apples and inbred oranges, you flanneled furriner.

Nope.  Absolutely identical.

Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 10:21:28 AM
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.

It's easy to just think "oh the British Empire would be even bigger if we still had the colonies" but we don't really know if that would have been the case. There's too many variables in play. Overall, the existence of America has benefitted the UK tremendously; you're throwing away the bird in the hand for the two birds you think you see in the bush.

Make Quebec join.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 16, 2009, 10:31:21 AM
Who knows? But historically, non-British subjects opted to go to independent countries like the US and Argentina over Canada and Australia.

Did they really? Plenty of Germans ended up in Canada and Australia, after all.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 16, 2009, 10:31:21 AM
Who knows? But historically, non-British subjects opted to go to independent countries like the US and Argentina over Canada and Australia.

They weren't exactly equal choices except for the government that ruled over the place though. The US covers considerably better land and had a better economy.
You should note also that large numbers of Europeans immigrated to Britain itself.

Quote
It's easy to just think "oh the British Empire would be even bigger if we still had the colonies" but we don't really know if that would have been the case. There's too many variables in play. Overall, the existence of America has benefitted the UK tremendously; you're throwing away the bird in the hand for the two birds you think you see in the bush.

Oh of course, I'm not going to be going traveling back in time and changing history, I'd probably end up coming home to find at some point the world got nuked to kingdom come. I think the chances for the world ending up better with a united Britain-US are bigger than with a independent US though.

The British were the best chance the world has ever had for unification.
In the 19th century British power was already pretty complete, with the US onside too this would be even greater. No one would be able to compete and the spread of liberal democratic ideas would be assured.
With a working model of two free power blocks mutually profiting from each other things would likely shape up better in India too once the British take over there (I don't see the EEC hanging on forever- even if they do manage to keep India under their thumb eventually left wing elements back home will get on their case) with less conservatives standing in the way of the Indian move towards democracy.

There is a chance that if British power becomes too absolute too early free trade could get out of control and companies run rampant over Africa and Asia without European imperialism to control them but...even if this occurs I'd think it would be sorted eventually. A company can't compete with its national government.

Quote from: Faeelin on August 16, 2009, 10:37:26 AM
Did they really? Plenty of Germans ended up in Canada and Australia, after all.

The number of Americans claiming primary German descent is roughly equal to the combined population of those countries.

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

Pass.

I would want to be on the side that gets to kill Mel Gibson - then I would be happy.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 16, 2009, 10:44:12 AM
The number of Americans claiming primary German descent is roughly equal to the combined population of those countries.

Of course, as there are three hundred million of us that's not surprising. It'd be more useful to know what percentage of those countries are descended from German immigrants, and why Germans chose America over Canada.

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 16, 2009, 10:44:49 AM
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.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 16, 2009, 10:31:21 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 10:21:28 AM
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.

Canada was less temperate than the US.  Australia was a far more difficult and more expensive journey.  It's not like they were equal choices.

Pretty much the only factor in which government played a role was the reduced propensity of the British colonies to genocide the natives, compared to their US counterparts.  I suppose you could also say that British trade policy delayed the need for cities full of industrial workers in the Dominions.  Of course, immigration for agricultural expansion was also needed.

I would be Tory, of course.

Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 10:21:28 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 16, 2009, 10:14:18 AM
:rolleyes:

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?

Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 10:41:50 AM
The British were the best chance the world has ever had for unification.
In the 19th century British power was already pretty complete, with the US onside too this would be even greater. No one would be able to compete and the spread of liberal democratic ideas would be assured.

British power did not extend past the range of the fleet's guns, that's hardly complete. As far as spreading liberal democracy, our very existence destroyed most of the Spanish empire, not to mention influencing the French Revolution.

The US is stronger today *because* it split from Britain when it did, while British power continued to grow in the period after they lost the colonies. What did Britain really lose? America expanded at the expense of France, Spain and Mexico. We opened Japan to western traders. We fought pirates. Then when you finally got embroiled in major wars on the continent, we fought on your side(eventually).

Faeelin- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadians_of_German_ethnicity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadians_of_German_ethnicity)

QuoteGerman Canadians (German: Deutsch-Kanadier or Deutschkanadier) are Canadians of ethnic German ancestry. The 2006 Canadian census put the number of Canadians of German ethnicity at 3,179,425. Only a small fraction of German Canadians are descendants of immigrants from what is today Germany.[citation needed]Far more have come from German populations in Eastern Europe and Russia with significant number[quantify] of Germans coming from Switzerland and the Low Countries; some have also come from Austria. Another large[quantify] group was those of German descent who came to Canada after spending a significant amount of time[quantify] in the United States.

Foreigner.  AGITATE!  I love the American revolution :wub:

Though I can't think of a revolution I don't think I'd, at least initially, support...:mellow:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 16, 2009, 11:28:20 AM
British power did not extend past the range of the fleet's guns, that's hardly complete. As far as spreading liberal democracy, our very existence destroyed most of the Spanish empire, not to mention influencing the French Revolution.

It's not clear t me how great of an influence we were, or to assume that we destroyed the Spanish
Empire, as opposed to, you know, the Napoleonic Wars.

Why couldn't a British America open Japan (leaving aside the fact that Britain was sniffing around Japan at the time). Why ignore Britain's role in suppressing the pirates (as well as the slave trade far earlier).

QuoteGerman Canadians (German: Deutsch-Kanadier or Deutschkanadier) are Canadians of ethnic German ancestry. The 2006 Canadian census put the number of Canadians of German ethnicity at 3,179,425. Only a small fraction of German Canadians are descendants of immigrants from what is today Germany.[citation needed]Far more have come from German populations in Eastern Europe and Russia with significant number[quantify] of Germans coming from Switzerland and the Low Countries; some have also come from Austria. Another large[quantify] group was those of German descent who came to Canada after spending a significant amount of time[quantify] in the United States.

I am not convinced wikipedia addresses German immigration to a British America, or is even accurate. I will merely note the presence of plenty of Germans in New York, NJ, and Pennsylvania in colonial times.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 16, 2009, 11:28:20 AM

QuoteOnly a small fraction of German Canadians are descendants of immigrants from what is today Germany.[citation needed]

:yeahright: I somehow doubt that.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 11:24:39 AM
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.

I agree this US would be smaller but I wouldn't say thats entirely a bad thing. A nation of Indiana could well end up well.
Louisiana wouldn't be purchased but it would be taken before too long
Mexico...I'd think some of it would be taken at some point, its unlikely to have that big a frontier border and not have some run in.  Just look to the Boer states for a analogue that shows the British can play that game too.

Quote
There is also the factor of economic development: would the British Parliament, without American representation, have promoted policies as favorable to American growth?

Who says there would be no American representation?
Things wouldn't stay the same for all time, that's for sure. Either America would get some sort of Dominionesque status or things would take a separate path and we would get American MPs or perhaps a separate Imperial parliament.
And yes, development of the American economy would certainly be followed.

QuoteWould America get sucked into the European wars Britain fought,

And?

Quotein addition to the US Civil War that almost certainly would have still occurred?

Uncertain.
The British government could well have the economic clout to compensate slave owners for freeing their slaves.
Even if conflict does emerge it would be put down far easier.

Quote from: Peter WigginBritish power did not extend past the range of the fleet's guns, that's hardly complete.

The fleets guns and the pound.
If Britain decided to take a dislike to a continental power it would have a much harder time than against a maritime nation but it would still win out.

QuoteAs far as spreading liberal democracy, our very existence destroyed most of the Spanish empire, not to mention influencing the French Revolution.

The American influence on the French revolution is grossly overstated. And that didn't exactly work out as planned.
As for the Spanish empire it was already on the decline.

Quote
The US is stronger today *because* it split from Britain when it did, while British power continued to grow in the period after they lost the colonies. What did Britain really lose? America expanded at the expense of France, Spain and Mexico. We opened Japan to western traders. We fought pirates. Then when you finally got embroiled in major wars on the continent, we fought on your side(eventually).

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.
All those other things could have been done by others too.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 11:24:39 AM
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.

That's a common misconception. The British didn't want to prevent westward expansion. They wanted an «ordered» westward expansion, one that did not rely on enrichment schemes by speculators (such as Washington) who would then be unwilling to pay for Native conflicts.  The Pontiac War profoundly shocked observers in London (and cost a pretty penny) and amongst the root causes, as analyzed by experts, was disunited Native-colonial policy.

As for the Louisiana purchase, things would probably have gone radically different anyway. Without American Revolution, who knows what other conflict might have led to a change in international diplomacy that would have involved Spain (the «owner» of Louisiana until the San Ildefonso treaty).

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

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 11:24:39 AM
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.

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.

QuoteWould America get sucked into the European wars Britain fought, in addition to the US Civil War that almost certainly would have still occurred?

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

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2009, 11:55:04 AM
Surely Louisiana would have been seized by the British at around the same time, or before, the purchase happened?

One interesting question is how much the Revolution set back American economic development. If you accept the most commonly accepted numbers, it would be considerably richer by 1803 or so, with a greater population, a more settled transappalachian, etc.  Given that during the Napoleonic Wars Britain gave serious thought to invading Uruguay, Mexico, Venzeuala, etc., rather than having a smaller British America, one could well see greater development.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2009, 11:55:04 AM
Surely Louisiana would have been seized by the British at around the same time, or before, the purchase happened?

It is most probable. Merchants from the Upper Mississippi, including the Illinois where the notion of who, actually, was in control was still in flux for the longest time, had strongly desired the status of free river for the Mississippi and merchants operating from Montreal had been trying to divert trade from their kin from New Orleans. Others still were working for Astor in New York, so I do not see how this would have changed.

Napoleon had planned to send troops but those were diverted by the Haitian Revolution. I have been through Clément Laussat's papers (the préfet who was sent to reinstate French rule) and the change of tone is hilarious (from «Frenchmen! You were never forgotten!» to «Dear Friends ! Today thanks to the Emperor, this is a new day for You!»)

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 16, 2009, 11:53:57 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 11:24:39 AM
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.

That's a common misconception. The British didn't want to prevent westward expansion. They wanted an «ordered» westward expansion, one that did not rely on enrichment schemes by speculators (such as Washington) who would then be unwilling to pay for Native conflicts.  The Pontiac War profoundly shocked observers in London (and cost a pretty penny) and amongst the root causes, as analyzed by experts, was disunited Native-colonial policy.

As for the Louisiana purchase, things would probably have gone radically different anyway. Without American Revolution, who knows what other conflict might have led to a change in international diplomacy that would have involved Spain (the «owner» of Louisiana until the San Ildefonso treaty).

Ordered = prevented, or at least slowed.

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 16, 2009, 12:00:10 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2009, 11:55:04 AM
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.

Quote from: Faeelin on August 16, 2009, 11:58:59 AM
One interesting question is how much the Revolution set back American economic development. If you accept the most commonly accepted numbers, it would be considerably richer by 1803 or so, with a greater population, a more settled transappalachian, etc.  Given that during the Napoleonic Wars Britain gave serious thought to invading Uruguay, Mexico, Venzeuala, etc., rather than having a smaller British America, one could well see greater development.

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

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 12:04:46 PM
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?

Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 11:52:51 AM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 12:04:46 PM
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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2009, 12:05:12 PM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 12:03:07 PM
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.

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

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 12:04:46 PM
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.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 16, 2009, 12:06:21 PM
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.

QuoteLets 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?

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 12:04:46 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 16, 2009, 12:00:10 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2009, 11:55:04 AM
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.

QuoteSurely 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).

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 12:09:09 PM
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?

Quote from: I Killed Kenny on August 16, 2009, 12:13:36 PM
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).

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 11:24:39 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 10:21:28 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 16, 2009, 10:14:18 AM
:rolleyes:

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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2009, 12:26:12 PM
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?

Quote from: Faeelin on August 16, 2009, 11:56:50 AM
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.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg251%2FTim811%2FNorthAmerica1799.png&hash=49d5b2ee81ff58188eab637492c488e6744d3dfd)

Quote
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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2009, 12:26:12 PM
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.

Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2009, 12:36:58 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2009, 12:26:12 PM
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.

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 16, 2009, 12:11:29 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 12:04:46 PM
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.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 16, 2009, 12:40:08 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2009, 12:26:12 PM
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?

Quote from: Faeelin on August 16, 2009, 12:06:47 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 12:04:46 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 12:45:33 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 16, 2009, 12:11:29 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 12:04:46 PM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 12:48:42 PM

Quote from: Faeelin on August 16, 2009, 12:06:47 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 12:04:46 PM
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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2009, 12:46:40 PM
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.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 16, 2009, 12:58:27 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2009, 12:46:40 PM
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.

Quote from: Faeelin on August 16, 2009, 12:16:12 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 12:09:09 PM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 12:45:33 PM
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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2009, 01:02:00 PM
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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2009, 12:44:35 PM
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.

Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 12:11:39 PM
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?

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 16, 2009, 01:19:17 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 12:45:33 PM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 01:15:12 PM
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 ?

Quote4) 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 ?

QuoteI 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.

QuoteThis 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 ?

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

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 01:31:29 PM
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.

QuoteAlso, 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.

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 16, 2009, 01:33:29 PM


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.

QuoteThis 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.

QuoteWhat 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.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 01:31:29 PM
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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2009, 01:54:17 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 01:31:29 PM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 01:53:59 PM
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.

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 16, 2009, 01:43:06 PM

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.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 01:58:06 PM

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.

Quote1) 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....

Quote
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote from: Faeelin on August 16, 2009, 10:52:56 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 16, 2009, 10:44:49 AM
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.

Quote from: Zanza on August 16, 2009, 10:02:14 AM
I'd probably join once it's started.

Zanza: von Steuben?

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 01:15:12 PMA 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.

Quote3) 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.

Quote4) 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?

Quote7) 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.

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. :bowler:

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

Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 02:29:37 PM

Quote
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?

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).

The population of the American colonies was probably about a third of the british isles at the time of the revolution. So I would expect that as British subjects, Americans would be granted about a quarter of the titles, have a quarter of the senior military leadership positions, a quarter of the senior government positions, and have key economic roles in major companies. Of course this was in no way the case, these American "aristocrats" had no titles, no political positions in their national government, no representation in parliament, no senior military roles, and I'm not aware of a senior role in a British company of the time.

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?

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 16, 2009, 02:34:01 PM

Quote from: Faeelin on August 16, 2009, 10:52:56 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 16, 2009, 10:44:49 AM
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.

My Brother went there last year.  He found them a very uncivilized people.  He liked the French and Germans much better.  At least he couldn't understand it when they insulted him.  Worst of all were the Dutch who are just scum.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 05:18:29 PM
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).

Sir William Johnson and later his son Sir John Johnson.  It was to the American's great advantage that Sir William died just prior to the war and that his son wasn't as skilled as he was.  Do a wiki search on Sir William especially, fascinating individual. :thumbsup:

Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2009, 05:21:08 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 16, 2009, 02:34:01 PM

Quote from: Faeelin on August 16, 2009, 10:52:56 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 16, 2009, 10:44:49 AM
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.

My Brother went there last year.  He found them a very uncivilized people.  He liked the French and Germans much better.  At least he couldn't understand it when they insulted him.  Worst of all were the Dutch who are just scum.

I found the Brits who I met for work or the airport folk going through Heathrow hell were quite nice. The rest of the population are surly, pudgy and poorly dressed fucks. Plus the place felt dirty.

And the last German I met gave me a lecture about American foriegn policy. So fuck them too.

Quote from: Judas Iscariot on August 16, 2009, 05:24:23 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 05:18:29 PM
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).

Sir William Johnson and later his son Sir John Johnson.  It was to the American's great advantage that Sir William died just prior to the war and that his son wasn't as skilled as he was.  Do a wiki search on Sir William especially, fascinating individual. :thumbsup:

I was trying to refer to an american leader on our side.

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.

I don't know if British people are civilized or not. I get stuck listening to their accents...which makes them all seem brilliant! :blush:

Quote from: Judas Iscariot on August 16, 2009, 05:35:21 PM
Why would someone with power and influence tied into remaining a loyal British subject join the revolutionaries?  It doesn't make sense.

Edmund Burke had a few ideas on that.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 05:45:42 PM

Quote from: Judas Iscariot on August 16, 2009, 05:35:21 PM
Why would someone with power and influence tied into remaining a loyal British subject join the revolutionaries?  It doesn't make sense.

Edmund Burke had a few ideas on that.

Ideas sure, but he didn't take actions, did he?  He made nice speeches, but still retained his titles and positions within the government and nation that was fighting the Americans, even if he was in the opposition party.

Quote from: Judas Iscariot on August 16, 2009, 05:54:44 PM
Ideas sure, but he didn't take actions, did he?  He made nice speeches, but still retained his titles and positions within the government and nation that was fighting the Americans, even if he was in the opposition party.

Burke was titled?

Interesting fact:  If you're in the opposition party, you're not part of the government.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 05:18:29 PM
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 you 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.

Quote
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.

Quote from: Fate on August 16, 2009, 04:33:24 PM
We should have remained a colony, or at the very least, leveraged our "victory" in order to gain normal representation in Parliament.

Ghey.

Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2009, 06:04:00 PM
Burke was titled?

Interesting fact:  If you're in the opposition party, you're not part of the government.

:blush: Ok, so title is false, but position isn't.  Property rights and all that too.  As to the second part, it depends on what you are defining.  He still served in the House of Commons, even if the Whigs weren't the dominant power.  He still had voting rights and was working within the bounds of British politics.  Also, when Lord North's government fell prior to the end of the war, he held a position in the government.

Quote from: Judas Iscariot on August 16, 2009, 06:13:33 PM

Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2009, 06:04:00 PM
Burke was titled?

Interesting fact:  If you're in the opposition party, you're not part of the government.

:blush: Ok, so title is false, but position isn't.  Property rights and all that too.  As to the second part, it depends on what you are defining.  He still served in the House of Commons, even if the Whigs weren't the dominant power.  He still had voting rights and was working within the bounds of British politics.  Also, when Lord North's government fell prior to the end of the war, he held a position in the government.

Being in the House of Commons isn't the same as being in the government.

At any rate, Burke deserves credit for not allowing his lust for reform turn him into a traitor, the way so many Americans did.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 05:18:29 PM

Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 02:29:37 PM

Quote
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?

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).

The population of the American colonies was probably about a third of the british isles at the time of the revolution. So I would expect that as British subjects, Americans would be granted about a quarter of the titles, have a quarter of the senior military leadership positions, a quarter of the senior government positions, and have key economic roles in major companies. Of course this was in no way the case, these American "aristocrats" had no titles, no political positions in their national government, no representation in parliament, no senior military roles, and I'm not aware of a senior role in a British company of the time.

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?

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.

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.

Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 06:04:35 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 05:18:29 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2009, 06:48:00 PM

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.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 08:05:58 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2009, 06:48:00 PM

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.

Ok, this is not funny.

Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2009, 10:36:00 AM
Make Quebec join.

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

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 16, 2009, 10:31:21 AM

Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 10:21:28 AM
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.

Quote from: saskganesh on August 16, 2009, 09:16:32 PM
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.

Quote from: saskganesh on August 16, 2009, 09:20:15 PM
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!

Quote from: saskganesh on August 16, 2009, 09:16:32 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2009, 10:36:00 AM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 07:52:58 PM
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.

:rolleyes:

Quote
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.

Quote from: Judas Iscariot on August 16, 2009, 05:35:21 PM
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  :menace: :mmm:

Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2009, 10:12:29 PM

Quote from: saskganesh on August 16, 2009, 09:16:32 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2009, 10:36:00 AM
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.

Quote from: Grallon on August 17, 2009, 10:12:21 AM
And become a northern Louisiana? No thanx.

Quebec would have imported tons of Carribean slaves?

Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2009, 10:46:22 AM

Quote from: Grallon on August 17, 2009, 10:12:21 AM
And become a northern Louisiana? No thanx.

Quebec would have important tons of Carribean slaves?

As opposed to unimportant tons of Caribbean slaves?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 17, 2009, 10:49:23 AM
As opposed to unimportant tons of Caribbean slaves?

To the slave economy of the southern states there was no such thing as unimportant slaves. -_-

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 01:15:12 PM
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.

At best, that is a big over-exaggeration.  British policy may have been misguided in some respects, but it was not an issue of the British simply being unconcerned with economic development.  What the British tried to do rather crudely was encourage an imperial system of specialization.  So certain American colonial economic activity was dicsouraged, but other activities were not only encouraged by given preferential market access.  For example, the shipbuilding industry in the New England was stimulated by the Navigation Acts, even as the effective non-enforcement of those laws on the American side gave additional opportunities for the colonists to expand their maritime trade further.

My family were actually Loyalists. I would be the same. Long live the King and his blue turds.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 16, 2009, 09:44:56 AM
All fucking monarchists must fucking hang.

Ditto, at least for North America.  Europe should keep/restore all their monarchs, however :)

Voted Sonz of Libertee :punk:

To all the Loyalists I would like to point out that everything is simple with hindsight. You have to remember that people back then didn't know what we know today.

Quote from: The Brain on August 17, 2009, 11:45:56 AM
To all the Loyalists I would like to point out that everything is simple with hindsight. You have to remember that people back then didn't know what we know today.

No shit Sherlock. Actually I don't think it was simple at the time (unless you were a moron.... my family were gentry/gentlemen farmers so I'm sure they thought about their positions, and fought hard to keep them.)

They're lucky their brains weren't filled with all the crap we know today.

Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2009, 10:46:22 AM

Quote from: Grallon on August 17, 2009, 10:12:21 AM
And become a northern Louisiana? No thanx.

Quebec would have imported tons of Carribean slaves?

Actually very few slaves were imported in French Louisiana, and then solely in the 1720s. There is only a single slaving venture in the 1740s. Louisiana's slave population then grew out of natural increase and small groups of dozens of slaves exchanged from Saint Domingue / Haiti.

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 17, 2009, 12:13:35 PM
Actually very few slaves were imported in French Louisiana, and then solely in the 1720s. There is only a single slaving venture in the 1740s. Louisiana's slave population then grew out of natural increase and small groups of dozens of slaves exchanged from Saint Domingue / Haiti.

My impression was the Slaves in Louisiana came from the fleeing slave owners bringing their slaves over from Haiti during the Haitian revolt.

However I got that bit of information from a show about Voodoo so I accept that may not be entirely accurate.  :P

No, you are right, many of them came by way of Cuba, btw. That's the second wave of slave immigration, which leads to a historiographical debate about the practices of slavery of Louisiana, whether it was shaped by peculiar practices of New Orleans or by those of (mostly) Cap Français.  This is why it usually comes up in discussions about voodoo, as people are unsure whether that was born in Haiti or if there existed one tradition previously at New Orleans.

The third wave of slave immigration will be the American one, eventually relayed by the inter-state market. 

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 17, 2009, 10:58:15 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on August 16, 2009, 01:15:12 PM
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.

At best, that is a big over-exaggeration.  British policy may have been misguided in some respects, but it was not an issue of the British simply being unconcerned with economic development.  What the British tried to do rather crudely was encourage an imperial system of specialization.  So certain American colonial economic activity was dicsouraged, but other activities were not only encouraged by given preferential market access.  For example, the shipbuilding industry in the New England was stimulated by the Navigation Acts, even as the effective non-enforcement of those laws on the American side gave additional opportunities for the colonists to expand their maritime trade further.

The laws were significantly biased in favor of the home country.

Eliminate the portions of the navigation acts that favor the UK at the expense of the colonies, abolish the East India Company, and provide the colonies with proportional representation in parliament  and we can begin a discussion of the steps needed to bring about the economic condition under which separation was not necessary.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 17, 2009, 11:23:01 PM
Eliminate the portions of the navigation acts that favor the UK at the expense of the colonies, abolish the East India Company, and provide the colonies with proportional representation in parliament  and we can begin a discussion of the steps needed to bring about the economic condition under which separation was not necessary.

I'm sorry but I lack the authority to do any of those things. :)

IMO it is anachronistic to look at economic policy in and affecting colonial America from an ideological perspective of Smithian liberalism that only arose at the very end of the period.  The British in the metropole were basing policy based on the settled ideas of their time.  Colonial elites might seek to evade the laws from time to time, but that doesn't mean they didn't share the same beliefs and assumptions.  New England ship builders and naval supply concerns were perfectly happy to operate under the protective umbrella of an imperial system that kept out foreign competition and occasionally paid generous bounties.  Southern sugar producers were very happy to have special access to the lucrative British home market without being undercut by cheaper production from the French, Dutch and Spanish islands.

Another effect of external restrictions on trade was the spur it gave to the development of internal markets and trade among the American colonies.  Britain might restrict grain imports but that just redirected that trade to the domestic market and helped encourage regional specialization and improved transport linkages.   it also encouraged marginal workers to push inland and develop the agricultural hinterland - which could not link up to the international export market anyway, but could serve intra-regional markets within America.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 18, 2009, 09:25:23 AM
IMO it is anachronistic to look at economic policy in and affecting colonial America from an ideological perspective of Smithian liberalism that only arose at the very end of the period.  The British in the metropole were basing policy based on the settled ideas of their time. 

Agree, and the settled idea of the time was mercantilism, which included exploiting colonies for the benefit of the mother country.  This was why Virginia blacksmiths, for instance, could repair tools but were forbidden to make them - the British wanted all manufactured goods to come from Britain, while the colonies produced cheap raw materials.

Colonial mercantilism didn't die out with the advent (ironically, in 1776) of Smith's Wealth of Nations.  It persisted right to the end of the imperial era, and was resented continuously for hundreds of years.

Quote from: grumbler on August 18, 2009, 12:04:02 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 18, 2009, 09:25:23 AM
IMO it is anachronistic to look at economic policy in and affecting colonial America from an ideological perspective of Smithian liberalism that only arose at the very end of the period.  The British in the metropole were basing policy based on the settled ideas of their time. 

Agree, and the settled idea of the time was mercantilism, which included exploiting colonies for the benefit of the mother country.  This was why Virginia blacksmiths, for instance, could repair tools but were forbidden to make them - the British wanted all manufactured goods to come from Britain, while the colonies produced cheap raw materials.

Colonial mercantilism didn't die out with the advent (ironically, in 1776) of Smith's Wealth of Nations.  It persisted right to the end of the imperial era, and was resented continuously for hundreds of years.

Canada and Australia put tariffs on British goods. Why couldn't America?

Quote from: grumbler on August 18, 2009, 12:04:02 PM
Agree, and the settled idea of the time was mercantilism, which included exploiting colonies for the benefit of the mother country.  This was why Virginia blacksmiths, for instance, could repair tools but were forbidden to make them - the British wanted all manufactured goods to come from Britain, while the colonies produced cheap raw materials.

That's perhaps a bad example, as usually iron was imported in sheets and later transformed by local blacksmiths. From a commercial point of view, tools were more bulky than iron sheets and of little added value. The later infamous Iron Act was against the industrial manufacture of steel and of such iron sheets. IIRC, it did prohibit new establishment, but did not close existing ones.

«Mercantilist» policies were directed against commercial redistribution (the early-modern economy is mostly one of circulation, hence the Navigation Acts): it did not prevent local manufacture of homespun clothing, for instance. The acts on iron or hats were limited in scope and application. What their effects actually were, in economic term, is debated but is usually recognized to be marginal, as per the weakness of manufactures in the colonies anyway.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 18, 2009, 09:25:23 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on August 17, 2009, 11:23:01 PM
Eliminate the portions of the navigation acts that favor the UK at the expense of the colonies, abolish the East India Company, and provide the colonies with proportional representation in parliament  and we can begin a discussion of the steps needed to bring about the economic condition under which separation was not necessary.

IMO it is anachronistic to look at economic policy in and affecting colonial America from an ideological perspective of Smithian liberalism that only arose at the very end of the period.  The British in the metropole were basing policy based on the settled ideas of their time.  Colonial elites might seek to evade the laws from time to time, but that doesn't mean they didn't share the same beliefs and assumptions.  New England ship builders and naval supply concerns were perfectly happy to operate under the protective umbrella of an imperial system that kept out foreign competition and occasionally paid generous bounties.  Southern sugar producers were very happy to have special access to the lucrative British home market without being undercut by cheaper production from the French, Dutch and Spanish islands.

Not a very good argument--some people in the colonies were happy to take advantage of some of the benefits available to them, but at the end of the day their overall opinion of british colonialism was expressed through the revolution.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 17, 2009, 10:49:23 AM

Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2009, 10:46:22 AM

Quote from: Grallon on August 17, 2009, 10:12:21 AM
And become a northern Louisiana? No thanx.

Quebec would have important tons of Carribean slaves?

As opposed to unimportant tons of Caribbean slaves?

I believe the term you're looking for is Puerto Rican.

Quote from: Alfred RusselNot a very good argument--some people in the colonies were happy to take advantage of some of the benefits available to them, but at the end of the day their overall opinion of british colonialism was expressed through the revolution.

And in return, that is to take an overly simplistic view of what the Revolution was about. The question of British goods was a complex one and, as T. H. Breen has well researched, became important not so much for reasons of economic policies, but as short-hand symbols of the political struggle in and of itself.

In other words, no one really cared about where the goods were produced, but people cared about how they were taxed and, subsequently, how this issue of taxation was related to a political struggle. In so doing, British goods became associated with policies that had to be repelled, and therefore, had to be opposed as goods - not because of opinions over mercantilism, but over opinions over political power.

Then, all of this has to take into account the way the Southern colonies engaged in the Revolution based on issues related to slavery, much more than simply questions of economic theory (see W. Holton «Forced Founder»).

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 18, 2009, 04:00:11 PM

Quote from: Alfred RusselNot a very good argument--some people in the colonies were happy to take advantage of some of the benefits available to them, but at the end of the day their overall opinion of british colonialism was expressed through the revolution.

And in return, that is to take an overly simplistic view of what the Revolution was about.

I think simplicity is a virtue. But the simplicity aside, why the arguing with my statement? I've always thought that the early american assessment of british colonialism was negative. Had the american people loved british colonialism, there wouldn't have been a revolution.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 18, 2009, 09:45:44 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 18, 2009, 04:00:11 PM

Quote from: Alfred RusselNot a very good argument--some people in the colonies were happy to take advantage of some of the benefits available to them, but at the end of the day their overall opinion of british colonialism was expressed through the revolution.

And in return, that is to take an overly simplistic view of what the Revolution was about.

I think simplicity is a virtue. But the simplicity aside, why the arguing with my statement? I've always thought that the early american assessment of british colonialism was negative. Had the american people loved british colonialism, there wouldn't have been a revolution.

The American people loved being British citizens, and as such believed they had the same rights as citizens in Britain as if the sea did not divide them. If Britain had compromised on the issue of representation they would have been happy to remain in the Empire, Navigation Acts or no Navigation Acts.

EDIT: I really miss JSTOR access now that I'm not going to URI anymore. :(

Quote from: alfred russel on August 18, 2009, 03:48:26 PM
Not a very good argument--some people in the colonies were happy to take advantage of some of the benefits available to them, but at the end of the day their overall opinion of british colonialism was expressed through the revolution.

I would second Oexmelin's response - rebellion had many other motivations than opposition to imperial trade policies.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2009, 10:55:50 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on August 18, 2009, 03:48:26 PM
Not a very good argument--some people in the colonies were happy to take advantage of some of the benefits available to them, but at the end of the day their overall opinion of british colonialism was expressed through the revolution.

I would second Oexmelin's response - rebellion had many other motivations than opposition to imperial trade policies.

I never said otherwise--and certainly not in the post quoted by Oex.

At the time of the revolution, there certainly wasn't an affinity for smithian economics in the colonists motivating rebellion. But I don't think that is to say overall british policies adversely affected the colonists, and while they might not have interpreted them in the same ways as I am, they still recognized and were repulsed by their effects.

I'm saying colonialism was not in the interests of the american colonies because (and this is not a comprehensive list):
a) Trade--with europe severely restricted due to the navigation acts, with asia effectively legally prohibited due to the East India monopoly
b) Tax and Spend issues--not likely to be to the colonies benefit due to representation, and their second class status in the empire.

Both of these were recognized by the colonists at the time of the revolution, though perhaps not in the same way we see them. The Boston Tea Party, for example, was a protest movement against the British attempting to take advantage of the East India Monopoly which had been sporadically enforced. The Boston Tea Party and similar protests led to the Intolerable Acts, which included actions such as closing Boston Harbor, which highlighted the second class status and lack of regard for the colonists, as that would not take place in a similar english harbor.

You act like it would take an all our nothing radical political realignment to avoid the revolution AR, but that's only true if the compromise is made in the 11th hour.

A moderate compromise on this issue of Representation between the mid '50s to mid '60s would have been enough to cool things down for quite a while. And Britain and the Colonies had the kind of political culture where compromise will beget more compromise. Oh it might take a few decades, but it would have come.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 19, 2009, 12:14:26 PM
You act like it would take an all our nothing radical political realignment to avoid the revolution AR, but that's only true if the compromise is made in the 11th hour.

I'm not so much interested in what it would take to placate the colonists to remain in the empire for a while longer. But since the colonial system concentrated economic and political power in the home country, I do think that achieving a situation in which it was in the colonists' interests to remain british would take a radical realignment.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 19, 2009, 12:14:26 PM
You act like it would take an all our nothing radical political realignment to avoid the revolution AR, but that's only true if the compromise is made in the 11th hour.

A moderate compromise on this issue of Representation between the mid '50s to mid '60s would have been enough to cool things down for quite a while. And Britain and the Colonies had the kind of political culture where compromise will beget more compromise. Oh it might take a few decades, but it would have come.

If the British had not passed the Townsend Act after they repealed the Stamp Act, that is all it would have taken.

They screwed up when they didn't appease the egos of the Colonial assemblies.  Pitt the Elder kissed their ass and they gave him everything he wanted.  The only people they needed to make happy were the Colonial elites and claiming Parliament had the right to pass laws over them was never going to fly.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 19, 2009, 12:40:57 PM
I'm not so much interested in what it would take to placate the colonists to remain in the empire for a while longer. But since the colonial system concentrated economic and political power in the home country, I do think that achieving a situation in which it was in the colonists' interests to remain british would take a radical realignment.

I think that you are correct, but I also think that, had the British made compromises in 1775 that would have temporarily averted the American Revolution, world events in the subsequent decades may have made independence seem less desirable to the colonists.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 19, 2009, 12:40:57 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 19, 2009, 12:14:26 PM
You act like it would take an all our nothing radical political realignment to avoid the revolution AR, but that's only true if the compromise is made in the 11th hour.

I'm not so much interested in what it would take to placate the colonists to remain in the empire for a while longer. But since the colonial system concentrated economic and political power in the home country, I do think that achieving a situation in which it was in the colonists' interests to remain british would take a radical realignment.

If a compromise was made in 1765 and things went well, why could there not have been further incremental compromises in 1785 and then 1805. This is not an irrepressible conflict as there existed between the North and South over slavery. 

Quote from: grumbler on August 19, 2009, 01:48:11 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on August 19, 2009, 12:40:57 PM
I'm not so much interested in what it would take to placate the colonists to remain in the empire for a while longer. But since the colonial system concentrated economic and political power in the home country, I do think that achieving a situation in which it was in the colonists' interests to remain british would take a radical realignment.

I think that you are correct, but I also think that, had the British made compromises in 1775 that would have temporarily averted the American Revolution, world events in the subsequent decades may have made independence seem less desirable to the colonists.

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

Quote from: alfred russel on August 19, 2009, 02:01:48 PM

Quote from: grumbler on August 19, 2009, 01:48:11 PM
I'm curious as to why you think it would seem less desirable.

I suspect he's talking about Napoleon.  However I can not speak for grumbler so he is free to tell us what he was thinking of.

Quote from: Barrister on August 19, 2009, 02:25:23 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on August 19, 2009, 02:01:48 PM

I suspect he's talking about Napoleon.  However I can not speak for grumbler so he is free to tell us what he was thinking of.

Assuming that there was a violent revolution in France it would I think give pause to many Americans who wish to overthrow the existing system, and move them towards embracing compromise instead.

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.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 19, 2009, 03:49:47 PM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 19, 2009, 02:01:48 PM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 19, 2009, 03:49:47 PM
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.

Quote from: grumbler on August 19, 2009, 04:13:03 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on August 19, 2009, 03:49:47 PM
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.

Quote from: grumbler on August 19, 2009, 04:13:03 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on August 19, 2009, 03:49:47 PM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 19, 2009, 04:23:33 PM

Quote from: grumbler on August 19, 2009, 04:13:03 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on August 19, 2009, 03:49:47 PM
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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 19, 2009, 04:29:00 PM
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.

Quote from: Barrister on August 19, 2009, 04:53:23 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 19, 2009, 04:29:00 PM
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.

Quote from: grumbler on August 19, 2009, 04:08:08 PM
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:

QuoteAn 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.

:wub:

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.

Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2009, 05:52:36 AM
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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 19, 2009, 04:20:35 PM
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?

Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2009, 08:04:46 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 19, 2009, 04:20:35 PM
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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2009, 09:19:21 AM
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!

Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2009, 09:26:19 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2009, 09:19:21 AM
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!

More like American aggression. Spain won't sell so I foresee fillibustering by Southern militias or outright attack by the American Dominion/Kingdom.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 19, 2009, 03:50:34 PM
I think the conquest of Louisiana would have pleased Americans greatly.

We should not be too sure about that. The Purchase of Louisiana was heavily debated - and even that is notwithstanding the question of *how* the conquest would have been managed, which would have been susceptible to many political differences.

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 21, 2009, 02:00:04 PM
We should not be too sure about that. The Purchase of Louisiana was heavily debated - and even that is notwithstanding the question of *how* the conquest would have been managed, which would have been susceptible to many political differences.

Or the question of how the conquest would have been codified by treaty.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2009, 09:19:21 AM
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.

This is the worst of what-ifs. The intricacies of diplomacy of the late 18th c., absent an American Revolution, make it impossible to show this kind of certainty. What other crisis might have erupted ? How would the geopolitics of Europe respond to British triumphalism ? How exactly would the Spanish «drag» the French into such a conflict, when France was beset by famine and bad winters ?

What if Tim suddenly lost the ability to post?

Quote from: PDH on August 21, 2009, 02:09:35 PM
What if Tim suddenly lost the ability to post?

How could I understand the news without his insightful commentary?

Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2009, 02:12:57 PM

Quote from: PDH on August 21, 2009, 02:09:35 PM
What if Tim suddenly lost the ability to post?

How could I understand the news without his insightful commentary?

SHAMEFUL.  :mad:

Quote from: Oexmelin on August 21, 2009, 02:00:04 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 19, 2009, 03:50:34 PM
I think the conquest of Louisiana would have pleased Americans greatly.

We should not be too sure about that. The Purchase of Louisiana was heavily debated - and even that is notwithstanding the question of *how* the conquest would have been managed, which would have been susceptible to many political differences.

The purchase of Louisiana was heavily debated because of domestic political differences between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The two parties took hypocritical stances on the constitution and there was fear of an erosion of political power for the Northeast among the Federalists. While the latter might still exist among a faction in a British North America, ideologically I think that the population of an empire would be more predisposed to the idea of expansion than a Republic. Moreover as I mentioned in an earlier post, war might not begin at the behest of the American government but be provoked by filibustering Southern militias. The people of the frontier were not constrained by the diplomatic niceties of the government.

As for war with Spain dragging in France, my belief in Louis XVI's ability to miscalculate knows no limits.

And of course this presupposes that some extraordinary, unforeseen foreign policy crisis doesn't intervene but it's hard to see how one could occur with out leading to war with France and be considered major. Perhaps war with Russia, but over what?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 21, 2009, 02:50:36 PM
I think that the population of an empire would be more predisposed to the idea of expansion than a Republic.

Why ? Out of being part of an Empire ? You have to delve into ideas more than that. You might have oppositions to war as being costly, frontiers as being dangerous, colonies as being competitors. One could well envision the British Court as the agreed-upon arbiter in a contest of competiing colonies.

QuoteMoreover as I mentioned in an earlier post, war might not begin at the behest of the American government but be provoked by filibustering Southern militias. The people of the frontier were not constrained by the diplomatic niceties of the government.

No, they were not. The main problem though would not be the Southern militias nor the Spanish, but the Natives - likewise unconstrained by foreign conceptions of diplomacy. This is, again, the much more probable conflict emerging on the border. Your Southern militias should have to operate from Mobile, the only point of Southern contact along the Mississippi, and that place forces you to be in relations with the Choctaws, Chicasaws, Cherookees, southern Shawnees, etc. Such relations were not optimal with the American Republic.

Then, there is still the problem of which Spanish Empire you are considering. If your are projecting backwards the situation that existed on the Tejas border, that is slightly different as the Empire is not yet enmeshed in wars of independance, nor, strictly speaking, defending a backcountry. New Orleans was, in 1768, the site of one of the main episodes of Spanish projection of force from the Americas, in the Americas.

So, yes: possibilities of casus belli abound. The end results however, are far from being preordained, from Southern militias losing and being supported or denounced by British to a Britain unwilling to enter a war on the colonists' terms.

QuoteAs for war with Spain dragging in France, my belief in Louis XVI's ability to miscalculate knows no limits.

Louis XVI is not alone in his court: Louis XV's diplomacy shows that, at this time, the King of France had to navigate around factions in France's nobility. Having a Bourbon on the throne in the 1720s and in the 1820s did not prevent France from waging war against Spain both times.

We must simulate the matter with EU3  :bowler:

Simulation seems to suggest an accelerated conquest of the subcontinent.  :bowler:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg251%2FTim811%2FIndia1789.png&hash=4b9c014492eeecca6568bce3bd8119b3e688e2e2)