Deltacamelately

We would have been witnessing Bush with a cricket bat quite often.

__________________
I am the DARK that Rise to Kill..And Soar to Redeem!

Oscar

What if America had remained part of the crown? mmhh...I know !The French couldn't have earned the gratitude and respect of America and we would still be the victims today of French-bashing, jokes, rants, and deep suspicions... Or did I miss something?

maximusslade

I honestly think that the colonies would still have eventually severed ties with the old country. My reasoning for this is that is that colonists were almost greedily expansive. If I understand my history correctly, the crown forbade westward expansion over the Appalachian Mountains due to the fact that the crown had ceded that land to the natives. I can see it now. Colonists would have wanted to expand over the mountains to feel the hunger of new land as our population grew, the Crown would say, "no," and colonists would have said,"F*** you!" and expanded anyway, perhpaps cutting ties then. The Brittish outlawing slavery wouldnt have helped the situation either.

__________________
Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...

Blademaster

There would be a later revolution. The seeds were already planted by several acts of the Parliament and Parliament was of the view that the colonists had lesser rights. At that time, Parliament held the idea that only lords and landowners with vast holdings had nearly unlimited rights and anybody below them were peasants with limited rights. It took an Industrial Revolution to change this attitude and the Industrial Revolution could not have occur without American ingenuity and its knack for inventiveness.

astralis

BM,

sorry, the industrial revolution was already beginning to get underway in england at the time of the revolution; it exploded by the 1820s. the american Industrial Revolution, on the other hand, was in the 1870s.

the british reformed their politics in 1819, again in 1832, and once again in 1867. i suspect if the revolution was tamped down in the 1770s, these reforms would have come a bit faster, with the chance for revolution probably going down after the first set or two of reforms.

however, the resources available to what would be the dominion of the US would be so great that in a hundred years or so the US would probably either be running things in the UK, or the US would have gone its seperate ways- probably more calmly.

what's interesting is to see the influence of the american revolution in europe. would the french revolution have happened without the american one? if no french revolution, no napoleon; without napoleon, no british-dominated Long-Peace on the continent, a much slower unification of germany and italy...

if that was the case, the british empire would probably still be a going concern!

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

JAD_333

You are probably right that the colonies would have eventually separated from England. But English restraint on westward expansion was not a factor in the move for independence. In fact, England encourged westward expansion without much regard for the fate of the natives, unlike the French who understood the natives better and used them effectively in fighting the English. The reason there was no significant westward expansion was in part because the French claimed the region but mostly because the lifeblood of the colonies depended on close proximity to the coastal area. Interestingly, the colony of Vermont or New Hampshire, I don't recall which, claimed all territory extending in a corridor from its eastern border to the Pacific Ocean.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

Ironduke

Here's the colonial land claims:

Attached Images

573px-Statecessions.png (349.9 KB, 33 views)

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

maximusslade

I recall seeing this map when I was in grade school. All I have to say is, "we are some greedy buggers aren't we?"

maximusslade

To add on to my previous post, look at Mass. and Connecticut claims. Those state gov'ts are as greedy then as they are now. Only exception is that then it was land they wanted, now it is tax revenue. What an interesting state of affairs. We separate from England cause we claim that they were taxing the hell out of us, to now over 200 years later we choose to tax the living hell out of ourselves.

JAD_333

Great map. Looks like Connecticut was the great hog colony, not VT or NH. Thanks.

JAD_333

Allow me to be sarcastic for a moment. Can you see B. Franklin, J. Adams, T. Jefferson and all the other founding fathers sitting around planning our current tax structure?

The fact is, the first Congress wasn't formed to declare independence. It wanted instead to get the king to moderate his policies toward the colonies.
His intransigence on recognizing the rights of British citizens in the colonies and his sending troops to occupy Boston to enforce his policies finally drove them to declare independence. By then, most of the "unfair" taxes had been repealed by Parliament. Only the token tax on tea remained.

Another fact is that President Jefferson who defeated Adam's bid for a second term, was opposed to any direct taxes on citizens. His Secty of Treasurer, Gallitan (sp) despised deficits and prosposed wide cuts in Federal spending to wipe the deficit run by his predessor. Nearly 75% of government employees were let go, the small Navy was mostly mothballed, and the Army was reduced drastically. We had one frigate in the Med to keep an eye on the Barbary pirates and another on its way to relieve it when it was shelled in our coastal water by a British warship looking for deserters. The War of 1812 ensued and changed the way we looked at defense and taxes.

maximusslade

Yeah, just need to look at Kelo vs. City of New London to see that!! As you guys can tell, I am a HUGE CT fan....

Ironduke

Virginia was the biggest hog, claimed Kentucky and the whole of the Northwest Territory.

GraniteForge

Vermont wasn't a colony at all, but rather was the area claimed by both NH and NY. The governments of both made land grants in the disputed zone. "Vermont" as a distinct entity came later and, briefly, was an independant country.

During the Revolution, there was a movement to form the towns on both sides of the Connecticut River (NH and VT) as a separate governance area, but Washington opposed it as NH made it plain that any towns taken by this scheme would be recaptured by military action.

Some in NH still refer to VT as "The Grants."

JAD_333

Quite right. Thank you, Actually, CT was the colony whose name I was looking for.