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

[Joe McCarthy]

That's debatable. I still think there would have been this desire to push westward because of a growing population in the east. The British wouldn't have bothered to purchase Louisiana, they would have just took it by force. Same with Florida, probably even Cuba. The rise of the US is what kept the British from expanding their influence in the Americas. Anglo settlers would have still moved into Texas and created tensions there and Britain would have crushed the Mexicans ruthlessly. Canada and the US would be one country today. Independent with Elizabeth II as its Head of State.

The problem is that Britain had issued the Proclamation Act of 1763 guaranteeing Indian lands. They were blocking westward advance out of fear the colonies would become too strong and break away. It was balance of power politics applied to their own colonies.

[Contra Mundum]

The problem is that Britain had issued the Proclamation Act of 1763 guaranteeing Indian lands. They were blocking westward advance out of fear the colonies would become too strong and break away. It was balance of power politics applied to their own colonies.

So you think the British would have allowed France and Spain to hold large tracts of land bordering the colonies indefinitely?

[Joe McCarthy]

So you think the British would have allowed France and Spain to hold large tracts of land bordering the colonies indefinitely?

I don't know. What I do know is that a situation had developed where Britain feared the expansion of its own colonies out of fear of losing them. They may have opted to frustrate their own colonies' expansion and effectively sided with the Spanish. It's hard to see how they could maintain control over a continent from an island across an ocean. Independence would probably have come sooner or later regardless. As Thomas Paine said, 'Why should a continent be ruled by an island?'

[Contra Mundum]

I don't know. What I do know is that a situation had developed where Britain feared the expansion of its own colonies out of fear of losing them. They may have opted to frustrate their own colonies' expansion and effectively sided with the Spanish. It's hard to see how they could maintain control over a continent from an island across an ocean. Independence would probably have come sooner or later regardless. As Thomas Paine said, 'Why should a continent be ruled by an island?'

They maintained control over half the world. The rebellion almost failed because of divisions among the 13 colonies, no reason not to think it would have been even more difficult to organize a rebellion with the expansion westward.

[Joe McCarthy]

They maintained control over half the world. The rebellion almost failed because of divisions among the 13 colonies, no reason not to think it would have been even more difficult to organize a rebellion with the expansion westward.

The rebellion failing would itself have created major problems in American development as there would have been more rebellions. The anger and divisions would have remained. Once the colonies became immensely strong this nascent sense of national identity would have been hard to contain. The British weren't dealing with Africans, Indians, or sparsely settled colonies down under.

In any case, it is in the interests of parent countries to prevent colonies from getting too powerful, and Britain was pursuing policies designed to keep us from getting too powerful. They obviously didn't think the prospects for a successful rebellion were mitigated by westward expansion.

[Wulfhere]

But they were forced to pay taxes without them having them real representation. They had no real MP's in Westminster and they were not represented. Fact.

Fact - the British taxpayers funded a war to keep the colonies free from French conquest. Should the colonists not have been asked to contribute?

Fact - in 1776, less that 10% of the British population had the vote. By your logic, those that didn't had no moral obligation to pay any tax, correct?

[The Lawspeaker]

Fact - the British taxpayers funded a war to keep the colonies free from French conquest. Should the colonists not have been asked to contribute?

Not without their consent.

Fact - in 1776, less that 10% of the British population had the vote. By your logic, those that didn't had no moral obligation to pay any tax, correct?

Exactly. No taxation without representation.

[Wulfhere]

The rebellion failing would itself have created major problems in American development as there would have been more rebellions. The anger and divisions would have remained. Once the colonies became immensely strong this nascent sense of national identity would have been hard to contain. The British weren't dealing with Africans, Indians, or sparsely settled colonies down under.

In any case, it is in the interests of parent countries to prevent colonies from getting too powerful, and Britain was pursuing policies designed to keep us from getting too powerful. They obviously didn't think the prospects for a successful rebellion were mitigated by westward expansion.

What do you mean by "us"? You were us.

[Wulfhere]

Not without their consent.


Exactly. No taxation without representation.

You're speaking as if the colonies had some sort of separate right to existence, and weren't actually colonies.

The American Revolution was a disaster. Imagine how powerful the Anglosphere might be today if it was still politically united? The USA would never have had to import loads more blacks, and loads of other crap, to make up its numbers, either.

[Eurocentric]

France = New Brownzil.