What if there was No american revoltion?

[unmerged(6491)]

1765- King George III decides to spread the townshend acts more evenly around the empire, whch pleases the American Colonists
1785- Lousiana is expanded to include, Texas,New Mexico,Arizona,Utah,colorado,The Midwest states,Manitoba,southern Saskatoon, southern Alberta,California,sonora,Chuihaha, the Baja California area,Coahilla,Buevo Leon and taumpalipas
1800-England declares war on france and Napoleon is forced to sell lousiana to England



more later!!

 

[unmerged(1609)]

I'm rather sceptical. 1765 event could delay American revolution but not prevent it.

 

[unmerged(6491)]

It was the Townshend acts that snowballed into the whole revolution happening Shows you how ONE law changes history 1766 was the last chance the Brits had to keep us in their empire What was doing,trying to an american revolution seriously, shows you goats ARE not good parliement members or why (becauuse they were asses,smoking weed and fucking ugly girls instead of doing parliment jobs)) The USA's appearance hinged on the townshend acts of Parlimentary idiocy Funny how history depends on 1 law,1 person... isn't it the

 

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by Jan Zamojski
I'm rather sceptical. 1765 event could delay American revolution but not prevent it.

If Pitt the Elder had his way the American Revolution wouldn't have escalated as it did. Trouble is that the events in the colonies raced ahead of the political efforts of Pitt (much like Afghanistan did now) as he was trying -and with success apparently- to convince Parliament to accept the fact that the Colonists had the right to be represented in London. It was his aim to keep the British Empire united, and before the Revolution the American colonists were most definitly feeling British (as some writings from Franklin prove).

 

[celedhring]

And still British owned US is certainly not an option. Of course, the world would be extremely different, but I don't think that not having the US would prevent the whole decolonization movement. So sooner or later the area would have become independent.

 

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by celedhring
And still British owned US is certainly not an option. Of course, the world would be extremely different, but I don't think that not having the US would prevent the whole decolonization movement. So sooner or later the area would have become independent.

It remained very much an option until the first shots were fired by the Redcoats. If there would've been an easier way to communicate with the troops and colonial leaders then things would have been different.
Or if England had let the colonies pay taxes from the start they were considered as english territory.

 

[celedhring]

Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80


It remained very much an option until the first shots were fired by the Redcoats. If there would've been an easier way to communicate with the troops and colonial leaders then things would have been different.
Or if England had let the colonies pay taxes from the start they were considered as english territory.

I am talking in the long term.

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by The Aztec VII
1785- Lousiana is expanded to include, Texas,New Mexico,Arizona,Utah,colorado,The Midwest states,Manitoba,southern Saskatoon, southern Alberta,California,sonora,Chuihaha, the Baja California area,Coahilla,Buevo Leon and taumpalipas
1800-England declares war on france and Napoleon is forced to sell lousiana to England

Why would Louisiana incorporate parts of New Spain in 1785?

More likely, the British would simply either take Louisiana from Spain the first time Spain allied with France (1795, I think) or else conquer Louisiana from France in 1805 following he resumption of hostilities. Assuming that the colonies revolt against British rule, eventually settlement would spread into the thinly populated areas of northern Mexico prompting Britain to force Mexico to cede these territories (possibly even without a war).

 

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by celedhring


I am talking in the long term.

Ah, then indeed it would have been difficult to prevent the decolonisation-efforts of various nations.

 

[unmerged(6491)]

Now thats how it expands into new spain, settling but WHY Daek knight!? why edit out the green!

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by The Aztec VII
Now thats how it expands into new spain, settling but WHY Daek knight!? why edit out the green!

Because it's both extremely irritating and in bad taste to post entire messages in odd colours; but go ahead, if you so desire.

 

[unmerged(6491)]

The Rough enforcement of the townshend acts destroyed The hope of retaining the 13 colonies the 1776 American war of seccession(American Revolution) Changed history irrevokably.





Yo Dark Knight is THIS what you were talking about?

 

[unmerged(6021)]

Originally posted by The Aztec VII

1785- Lousiana is expanded to include, Texas, New Mexico,Arizona,Utah,colorado,The Midwest states,Manitoba,southern Saskatoon, southern Alberta,California,sonora,Chuihaha, the Baja California area,Coahilla,Buevo Leon and taumpalipas

1786
And upon discovering what they expanded too promptly returned Manitoba, southern Saskatoon (don't you mean Saskatchewan), & southern Alberta.

btw, what do you think would have been the reaction of the inhabitants of the "Indian Territory" to no independance. Would it have delayed the expansion into "Indian" lands?

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Well if Britain had remained in charge slavery would have been abolished a damn sight sooner for a start - a fact that is often conveniently forgotten!

 

[unmerged(6491)]

very true top cat...

 

[Pwyll]

Re: Re: What if there was No american revoltion?

Originally posted by stickman

1786
And upon discovering what they expanded too promptly returned Manitoba, southern Saskatoon (don't you mean Saskatchewan), & southern Alberta.

btw, what do you think would have been the reaction of the inhabitants of the "Indian Territory" to no independance. Would it have delayed the expansion into "Indian" lands?

Britain had no plans to expand futher into the ohio valley, they were fairly happy building up where they were and trading with the natives in the deeper interior. Like the Hudsons Bay Company in Manitoba...and more westerly...America would have looked much like this for a while but eventually there would have been a great push westwards.

 

[Pwyll]

Originally posted by celedhring
And still British owned US is certainly not an option. Of course, the world would be extremely different, but I don't think that not having the US would prevent the whole decolonization movement. So sooner or later the area would have become independent.

It is strange to think even now but of all the countries in the world with foreign investment in the United States, it is Britain that has the largest percentage. Even greater than that of Japan.

Of all the peoples lost in the world trade center tragedy a full 20%
were British. 700

 

[unmerged(6826)]

If the revolt was delayed, its possible each colony could get its own identity. Instead of a union of states, we could have 13 squaballing nations.

Okay, thats unlikely. But what if the south didn't sign the dec of independence? Imagine this: The south stays British until about 1810. Over disputes about slavery or industry taxes, Texas and Florida revolt from Spain and join with South against Britain. Spain thinks its Britain's fault, Britain Spain's, and Napolean owns all of western Europe

 

[unmerged(4253)]

Originally posted by Pwyll


It is strange to think even now but of all the countries in the world with foreign investment in the United States, it is Britain that has the largest percentage. Even greater than that of Japan.

It's still never totalled more than 40% of foreign investments even for a year.

 

[Gunthar]

Re: Re: Re: What if there was No american revoltion?

Originally posted by Pwyll


Britain had no plans to expand futher into the ohio valley, they were fairly happy building up where they were and trading with the natives in the deeper interior. Like the Hudsons Bay Company in Manitoba...and more westerly...America would have looked much like this for a while but eventually there would have been a great push westwards.

Yeah, the British were trying to respect the natives rights, which seemed to the American colonists to be a path much to similar to the one the French took. Same thing happened during the treaty of Ghent after the War of 1812. The British tried to include the natives in the Treaty (as a sort of buffer zone, obviously they were not doing it totaly out of the goodness of their heart), but the Americans refused to even discuss the status of the natives at all.