Marseilles is now 30-40% Muslim. Excessive violence, riots, and rapes!

[Wulfhere]

One only has to look at Canada and Australia, still mainly Anglo countries, to see what British policy would actually have been. There's no need to speculate.

[Joe McCarthy]

One only has to look at Canada and Australia, still mainly Anglo countries, to see what British policy would actually have been. There's no need to speculate.

Sparsely settled countries that also received Irishmen. Where was Great Britain going to get all of these Anglo-Saxons to populate the US? As it was the US had a preference for English immigrants and received many.

[Contra Mundum]

http://www.fpri.org/orbis/4702/taylo...erica1700.html

Far from becoming more homogeneous and united during the eighteenth century, Americans became ever more diverse. Historian Jill Lepore calculates that “the percentage of non-native speakers in the United States was actually greater in 1790 than in 1990.”

[Wulfhere]

Sparsely settled countries that also received Irishmen. Where was Great Britain going to get all of these Anglo-Saxons to populate the US? As it was the US had a preference for English immigrants and received many.

Yes, Irishmen. From the British Isles.

The USA wanted people, and wanted them fast, and cared little about where they came from, anywhere in Europe would do. The British took a more long-term approach.

Whilst the southern border with the Hispanic lands might not be precisely where it is today, in general the whole of North America would now be a single, mainly Anglo, dominion of the crown. I also expect the capital of the Empire would probably have been shifted from London to - say - New York, at some point in the late 19th century.

[Joe McCarthy]

As in the case of Canada, the westward expansion would have resumed soon enough.

That ignores the reason for the 1763 proclamation in the first place - which was to keep the colonies at a manageable size so they could be controlled. Canada never had the kind of potential to become as strong, and thus a threat, and there was less need to inhibit expansion.

[Wulfhere]

That ignores the reason for the 1763 proclamation in the first place - which was to keep the colonies at a manageable size so they could be controlled. Canada never had the kind of potential to become as strong, and thus a threat, and there was less need to inhibit expansion.

Even if that were the primary motivation (rather than, say, a desire not to provoke the French), it was a temporary expedient that would have fallen by the wayside very quickly. Expansion was inexorable. It was, of course, a very convenient excuse for the small conspiracy of revolutionaries to use, however. How ironic that they only succeeded with French help, the great enemy and block to further expansion.

[Joe McCarthy]

Franklin wrote that non-Saxons were not RED and WHITE.

Here's what he said, and I'll note that he said this during British rule. The British were swamping the colonies with non-Englishmen:

[QUOTEWhy should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.

Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

"Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation…and as few of the English understand the German Language, and so cannot address them either from the Press or Pulpit, ’tis almost impossible to remove any prejudices they once entertain…Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it…I remember when they modestly declined intermeddling in our Elections, but now they come in droves, and carry all before them, except in one or two Counties...In short unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies, as you very judiciously propose, they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not in My Opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious." -Benjamin Franklin][/QUOTE]

[Joe McCarthy]

Even if that were the primary motivation (rather than, say, a desire not to provoke the French), it was a temporary expedient that would have fallen by the wayside very quickly. Expansion was inexorable. It was, of course, a very convenient excuse for the small conspiracy of revolutionaries to use, however. How ironic that they only succeeded with French help, the great enemy and block to further expansion.

The French had already been defeated and the colonists were looking forward to settling the lands the French had been blocking. The Proclamation of 1763 was issued under the lame pretense that the Indians must not be antagonized, as if we couldn't mop the floor with them.

[Wulfhere]

The French had already been defeated and the colonists were looking forward to settling the lands the French had been blocking. The @roclamation of 1763 was issued under the lame pretense that the Indians must not be antagonized, as if we couldn't mop the floor with them.

And certainly wouldn't have lasted. I'm not sure why you keep bringing this issue up, unless you have swallowed the propaganda put out by the revolutionaries. If you want to look at the difference between lies and true motivations, ask yourself what the true motivation of the revolutionaries was. It's not hard to find - money. A pursuit that has continued to inform American society ever since.

[Joe McCarthy]

And certainly wouldn't have lasted. I'm not sure why you keep bringing this issue up, unless you have swallowed the propaganda put out by the revolutionaries. If you want to look at the difference between lies and true motivations, ask yourself what the true motivation of the revolutionaries was. It's not hard to find - money. A pursuit that has continued to inform American society ever since.

If the motivation was money it would have been safer to be a Tory. Indeed, Tories tended to be wealthier. A number of revolutionaries lost their homes and fortunes. Why would John Hancock, a wealthy man, risk his fortune to lead a revolt that before Saratoga was a long shot if his motivation was money?