Interesting colonial map - I never knew the extent of French territiory in North America (c. 1750)

[Kulindahr]

I would have liked to have seen the South try in 1789. No allies, no industry, no ports...

It would have been simple: they would have invited Britain back.

They would have had no allies in 1775, either. It would have made no difference, because people backed into a corner fight.

 

[Alnitak]

It would have been simple: they would have invited Britain back.

They would have had no allies in 1775, either. It would have made no difference, because people backed into a corner fight.

Parliament actually cut off the war because the British people were at their wits end. Yorktown didn't stop the British from continuing the war. They had another whole army in New York City, an even larger one in fact than Cornwallis had. I seriously doubt just six years after the Treaty of Paris that Parliament would have allowed it.

 

[Benvolio]

Except you just said the Southern states couldn't be forced into the Constitution, when four states actually were.

No, Article VII provided that once 9 states ratified, it would be effective "between the States so ratifying the same." No state was forced into the Constitution.

 

[Alnitak]

No, Article VII provided that once 9 states ratified, it would be effective "between the States so ratifying the same." No state was forced into the Constitution.

Congress nevertheless forced them economically, by threatening to treat Rhode Island like a foreign state. When Rhode Island still refused, the Senate slapped Rhode Island with economic sanctions, and the state eventually caved. Same story with North Carolina.

Read "The Constitution in Congress" by David Currie.

 

[bankside]

I have to say that it grieves me that Britain didn't force the issue of retaining the Indiana territories and Ohio.....just think all the people in those areas would have universal health care and homo marriage by now.

I'm more annoyed about not buying Alaska. What was Westminster thinking? I'd've gladly taken/kept the rest of the Columbia District. I think the Province of Thompson has a nice ring to it.

I've always thought it sad that they didn't join in. It would be fun to have an alternate history where they had -- I've pondered whether that might have been enough to prevent the Civil War.

Canadian provinces were invited to the First Continental Congress. Had they participated in the war, the United States would be absolutely enormous and unshakably liberal. Slavery would have also ended much sooner.

We had the good sense to realise that one shitty king was nothing to justify a giant epic tantrum. (a piece of advice that will probably again serve us well over the next 30 years or so.)

Canada enjoyed the further development of democratic institutions pretty much at the same time as the US colonies, just without the same kind of revolution. Indeed the commitment to advancement without arms is a defining national characteristic. So, I don't think the provinces would have joined, nor do I think they should have; I've thought it sad that they couldn't persuade the other colonies to stay.

If we're looking at alternative histories, I think it is more fun, for the sheer scale of the difference, to imagine what it would be like if France had maintained its claims.

 

[T-Rexx]

If we're looking at alternative histories, I think it is more fun, for the sheer scale of the difference, to imagine what it would be like if France had maintained its claims.

France could not possibly have maintained her claims in the New World.

Not anymore successfully than did England or Spain.

Attempting to hold onto them would only have resulted in more wars, with the same ultimate outcome.

 

[Kulindahr]

Parliament actually cut off the war because the British people were at their wits end. Yorktown didn't stop the British from continuing the war. They had another whole army in New York City, an even larger one in fact than Cornwallis had. I seriously doubt just six years after the Treaty of Paris that Parliament would have allowed it.

With an invitation? When it would mean getting a large chunk of land back?

 

[darden]

France could not possibly have maintained her claims in the New World.

Not anymore successfully than did England or Spain.

Attempting to hold onto them would only have resulted in more wars, with the same ultimate outcome.

yeah... had the Louisiana Purchase not occurred, the Mexican-American War probably would have been the French-American War. there was too much internal desire to expand westward and too little ability for the European empires to defend their colonies.

Napoleon's interests seemed to lie squarely in Europe, and prior to the Purchase, I think the founding father's figured they'd just keep settling westward regardless, because there wasn't anything anyone could do about it.

 

[Alnitak]

With an invitation? When it would mean getting a large chunk of land back?

And send over warships and land troops and repeat the embarrassing rout by Nathaniel Greene all over again? I don't think so.

 

[Kulindahr]

And send over warships and land troops and repeat the embarrassing rout by Nathaniel Greene all over again? I don't think so.

It would have been a no-brainer: the northern states would have been in no condition to fight against their southern neighbors, and the French were in no shape to help out a second time. London could have just sent some troops to garrison the border and apply economic clout to make it stand.

 

[maxpowr9]

It would have been a no-brainer: the northern states would have been in no condition to fight against their southern neighbors, and the French were in no shape to help out a second time. London could have just sent some troops to garrison the border and apply economic clout to make it stand.

Again, people seem to forget the fact that I said: "loyalists fled New England and went into New Brunswick". New Brunswick was predominately French before the loyalists came into the area and claimed a bunch of land for themselves. I love me some subjunctive history but Canada would in no way join the "United States" even back then. The only exception was Nova Scotia and the British strong armed them from joining the US.

Canada was basically where all the northern loyalists fled to which is why Canada till this day, much to its chagrin, still celebrates the Queen's Birthday.

 

[bankside]

Chagrin. Hmm.
I think the word you are looking for is "delight."

 

[Kulindahr]

Again, people seem to forget the fact that I said: "loyalists fled New England and went into New Brunswick". New Brunswick was predominately French before the loyalists came into the area and claimed a bunch of land for themselves. I love me some subjunctive history but Canada would in no way join the "United States" even back then. The only exception was Nova Scotia and the British strong armed them from joining the US.

Canada was basically where all the northern loyalists fled to which is why Canada till this day, much to its chagrin, still celebrates the Queen's Birthday.

That and Canada was under a different system of government. As I understand it, they had greater protection against the whims of the Crown.

 

[bankside]

That and Canada was under a different system of government. As I understand it, they had greater protection against the whims of the Crown.

Not by much, at the time of the US War of Independence. We had elected governments from the 1750s, but not much in the way of Responsible Government until later.

Responsible government refers to a government that is responsible to the people. In Canada responsible government is more commonly described as an executive or cabinet that is dependent on the support of an elected assembly, rather than on the Monarch. It originated in Canada in the 1830s and became an important part of Confederation. It’s the method by which Canada achieved independence without revolution.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/responsible-government

 

[chrisrobin]

.
I love this stuff! When I was in Albuquerque, I learned that the Portuguese occupied the land which is now New Mexico. Cinco de Mayo is much celebrated in L.A. What the Hispanics are celebrating is their freedom from Mexico!

 

[Kulindahr]

.
I love this stuff! When I was in Albuquerque, I learned that the Portuguese occupied the land which is now New Mexico. Cinco de Mayo is much celebrated in L.A. What the Hispanics are celebrating is their freedom from Mexico!

That date is when the Mexicans finally kicked the asses of the French and made their country their own -- it's not freedom "from Mexico", it's freedom from foreigners.

 

[rareboy]

Again, people seem to forget the fact that I said: "loyalists fled New England and went into New Brunswick". New Brunswick was predominately French before the loyalists came into the area and claimed a bunch of land for themselves. I love me some subjunctive history but Canada would in no way join the "United States" even back then. The only exception was Nova Scotia and the British strong armed them from joining the US.

Canada was basically where all the northern loyalists fled to which is why Canada till this day, much to its chagrin, still celebrates the Queen's Birthday.

Hmmmm.

Funny that a group of us were just discussing last week how much we enjoy the idea that not every one of our holidays is about celebrating something about war.....

 

[palemale]

I find it interesting that the least typical, most distinct and interesting American cities were not established by the English, but rather by other European countries. New York was settled by the Dutch, New Orleans by the French, and San Francisco by the Spanish.

 

[bankside]

I find it interesting that the least typical, most distinct and interesting American cities were not established by the English, but rather by other European countries. New York was settled by the Dutch, New Orleans by the French, and San Francisco by the Spanish.

What about Boston?

 

[Benvolio]

New York and San Francisco were tiny spots before they became English speaking. Most importantly, they, and Boston and others, were large natural harbors, which meant that it was inevitable that they would become important and large ports. Their tiny foreign seeds were irrelevant, and not the reason for their growth or distinctiveness. New Orleans, of course, was larger and, thus, more thoroughly French before it became English speaking, and has been able to retain some of its French culture.