02-04-2004 02:42									#31
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: *sigh* and I thought my insight into the nature of Parliament v colony was inspired. Oh well, back to the suicide booth.

I was just waiting for somebody to come along and add information to your "insight", since I can't add anything.

	02-04-2004 02:42									#32
	Put an end to popups!

quote: The basic problem is simply there were oceans between Britain and its colonies.

Since Britain had the largest navy in the world, then this makes no sense

	02-04-2004 02:42									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DanS I guess you're taking the view that Britain was taken by surprise that the colonies would successfully revolt? This has a lot of merit, but this doesn't answer to why Canada and Australia weren't given the vote.

I don't think I really understand your question in the first place. Are you asking why they created the Commonwealth instead of giving Australia and Canada seats in the parliament?

Technically the empire still exists, just in a different shape.

	02-04-2004 02:45									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: I don't think I really understand your question in the first place. Are you asking why they created the Commonwealth instead of giving Australia and Canada seats in the parliament?

Yes. Or they could have created the Commonwealth for the Indians and African colonies, but given Australia and Canada seats in parliament, if they were afraid of racial minorities.

	02-04-2004 02:49									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Adam Smith surmised that if the UK continued to hold onto the N. American continent then the capital of the UK might have to swing over there as the population surpassed the original islands.

Do you have a cite for that, JohnT? I would be interested in taking a look.

	02-04-2004 02:50									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Imo, the nature of thinking about colonies changed from being they sources of income and power (18th century) to becoming drains on money and men (20th century). It might not necessarily be so (in the case of Canada and Australia, it wouldn't be today obviously), but if that's the zeitgeist then it might make more sense to let the colonies go than to involve yourselves even deeper into their affairs by bringing them into yours.

Couple that with "agitators" within the colonies who prefer to build their own networks of power and influence apart from the British Empire and it's not surprising that the Brits just gave up the leash as being a hassle.

In short, at the time integration into the UK was too much of a bother and the reward too far off and nebulous for most to want to go through the pain. Better to give up the governmental rule and keep them within the Empire by historical, cultural, financial, and other ways.

	02-04-2004 02:53									#37
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by DanS But why didn't they share the broad decision-making powers? That's what I'm getting at. The US was happy to grant this to new states, for instance. We minted new states really fast.

Once a new state is created in the US it gets certain rights due to the fact that it's a state. It is more or less an independent entity joining a union, even if it had to be created by that union in the first place.

That concept still doesn't really exist in the UK. Local governments exist not independent of Parliament but at the mercy of Parliament. Counties are divided and created. Scotland got it's own parliament due to one bill and another bill could take it away again. That would be like the Congress passing legislation dissolving Ohio's state government. Can't be done in the USA because of the relationship of governing powers. Can be done quite easily in the UK.

So Canada and Australia (and the USA in the magical world where it stayed in the Empire) were not so much independent states with a right to MP's but forms of local government that could be created or destroyed on a whim by London. They weren't nations joining the UK but administrations created by the UK. Unlike US states, they didn't get certain rights just by the nature of their existence.

	02-04-2004 02:55									#38
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by DanS Do you have a cite for that, JohnT? I would be interested in taking a look.

I'm pretty sure it's in the Wealth of Nations. I have a relatively thick abridged version at home and I'll check it out when I get there.

	02-04-2004 02:59									#39
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by DanS Yes. Or they could have created the Commonwealth for the Indians and African colonies, but given Australia and Canada seats in parliament, if they were afraid of racial minorities.

Do you think the Indians would have fallen for that ploy?

Not trying to be insultive but perhaps you'd better get yourself a book about the history of the British Empire. The issue is a bit too complex for a succinct straightforward answer.

	02-04-2004 03:01									#40
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Spelling error? What spelling error?

	02-04-2004 03:04									#41
	Support Apolyton

I care, I care.

	02-04-2004 03:10									#42
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Colon, JohnT, nice editing

It all comes down to how unwieldy such a government would be, and the racism that the British had at that time. The ministers were so deluded that the did not see that there was no way that they could keep power under the (then) present circumstances.

	02-04-2004 03:20									#43
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Krill Since Britain had the largest navy in the world, then this makes no sense

Why not? The basic fact is that the colonies had become estranged from the home country. For one the British were enraged their colonies extensively traded with France during the 7 years war, while the colonies didn't see why they had contribute to a war about an issue that didn't affect their daily lives. You cannot fix such disparities of interests with a navy.

	02-04-2004 03:23									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Krill Colon, JohnT, nice editing

I see no "edited by JohnT" on my post.

	02-04-2004 03:43									#45
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

What I mean is that there was no way that the UK and the colonies could be separated, except for a war.

IE, The basic problem was NOT that there were a lot of water between the colonies and Britain. What it was, I don't know

	02-04-2004 04:10									#46
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

In the late eighteenth century a one way voyage across the Atlantic still took nearly a month, thus representatives from the Americas would have had a great deal of difficulty staying in touch with their constituencies. Had the British set aside a few seats in Parliament for the colonists the American represntatives would have been so isolated from the voters that they would have ceased being real advocates for the cause of their neighbors. I'm certain that the colonists took this into consideration when they coined the phrase "no taxation without representation". The slogan was merely a sham, the Continental Congress never submitted a petition requesting that Parliament aportion represntation for themselves. AFAIK there was never a serious proposal from London either.

By 1780 the population of the U.S.A. was a mere 2 million, while the population of England, Wales and Scotland was about 12 million. By 1860 the population of the US (in real life) was greater than that of the United Kingdom. In the 1840s Parliament accepted the concept of "one man- one vote", so it is possible that if the US had not become independent, yet had been granted full Parliamentary representation, then by the later half of the 19th century Americans would have dominated Parliament.

OTOH. had the US remained part of the empire would the growth of the US been as robust? If London had somehow managed to keep the land west of the Alleghany mountains off limits, there was still plenty of room for settlement, the combined area of the 13 colonies was several times that of the UK. Furthermore if the colonies were elevated to the smae status of the home counties I don't see how the British government would have been able to use the army to restrain settlers from moving west. Something else to consider is that during the French Revolutionary/ Napoleonic War era the British government did actually restrain immigration to the US, particularily for skilled workers. Had the American colonies been considered an integral part of Greater Britain I don't think that this would have been possible. Thus if the US had not gained its independence in 1783 then the growth of British North America might actually have been greater in the early 19th century.

For you military buffs: imagine "Sharp's Rifles" augmented by highly skilled American long riflemen.

	02-04-2004 04:43									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Are you guys serious that none of you noticed I confused the 7 years war with the Napoleonic wars?

	02-04-2004 04:46									#48
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The World wars are more interesting. We should have seen it though.

	02-04-2004 04:47									#49
	Remove this text

Yeah you should. I'd feel embarrassed if I were you.

	02-04-2004 04:54									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Why? We won both the wars.

	02-04-2004 04:55									#51
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Yeah you should. I'd feel embarrassed if I were you.

I think you mean the French and Indian War, right?

	02-04-2004 05:02									#52
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Colon Are you guys serious that none of you noticed I confused the 7 years war with the Napoleonic wars?

Huh? Some claim that George Washington actually started the Seven Years War / French and Indian War by attacking a French envoy. The American colonies were right in the thick of the Seven Years War. OTOH by the time of the Napoleonic Wars the "American Colonies" were no longer colonies, and thus had every right to trade with the French if they wanted to. That didn't stop the British from insisting that they didn't have the right however. Is that what you mean?

Oh, and while the brits were off defending the world from the rampaging "Bonie" they were not remiss from committing a little bit of the ol' "ultra-violence" themselves. It seems that while liberating the world they attempted to bring into the imperial fold Egypt, Syria, Argentina, Mexico, and Peru. Shockingly they were defeated in each instance.

	02-04-2004 05:04									#53
	Increase Your PM Length

As a matter of fact Australians could sit in the British Parliament up until after WWII.

The Brits learned form the American war of independence and granted self government to it's white colonies as a matter of course after that.

It's a bit of a tragedy really because of they had treated the American colonies better there might have been a kind of Super United States taking in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the American colonies with it's capital in London.

Having said that, the American colonies were probably always going to break away because their population was strongly composed people who fled Britain to escape oppression.

	02-04-2004 05:09									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Huh? Some claim that George Washington actually started the Seven Years War / French and Indian War by attacking a French envoy. The American colonies were right in the thick of the Seven Years War. OTOH by the time of the Napoleonic Wars the "American Colonies" were no longer colonies, and thus had every right to trade with the French if they wanted to. That didn't stop the British from insisting that they didn't have the right however. Is that what you mean?

Gunship diplomacy. It carried on until the 2nd world war.
It worked and it was a viable tactic, so there was no way to stop the trades short of convoys and war

	02-04-2004 05:21									#55
	Re: Why didn't the United Kingdom give the New World the vote? Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by DanS I'm afraid I've forgotten what little history I was taught on this specific topic. In short, why weren't the New World countries (Australia, US, Canada) given PMs in addition to their local assemblies? Likely, the UK would be a superpower today, if they had done so. I seem to remember that it took parliament another 50 years to reform itself modestly after the American revolution. But even so, Canada and Australia should have been given the vote rather than the boot by the empire. For discussion purposes, I'm assuming that the Louisiana territory would have fallen into British hands several years after the Louisiana Purchase. I don't make any assumptions about the ultimate disposition of California or Florida.

They gave the new world as much of a vote as their own citizens had had. They didn't do censuses every so often I don't think. If I remember from a history class I took last symester that was one of the arguments.

	02-04-2004 05:21									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: As a matter of fact Australians could sit in the British Parliament up until after WWII.

In equal proportion to population?

quote: It's a bit of a tragedy really because of they had treated the American colonies better there might have been a kind of Super United States taking in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the American colonies with it's capital in London.

That's where I was going with this. Perhaps the US as an integral part of the empire would have made the UK a credible deterrent against Germany in World War I. History would look quite a bit different had Germany been deterred. Also, perhaps the US would have abolished slavery earlier without a civil war.

quote: Having said that, the American colonies were probably always going to break away because their population was strongly composed people who fled Britain to escape oppression.

Yup yup. Other factors too, such as whether the US could stay in the UK orbit while having the lion's share of the population, economy, etc.

	02-04-2004 05:23									#57
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by DanS But not at the time that this stuff was decided. In 1776, the US population was only some 2.2 million souls.

the population was doubling every 20 years at that point from massive birth rate + immigration from Europe.

[edit]already in the thread[/edit]

	02-04-2004 05:51									#58
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by DanS In equal proportion to population?

Not as Australian representatives - Australians could have British passports and were considered dual British citizens up till the Australian migration act, which came into force in around 1948. The then Australian Prime Minister joined the British war cabinet and was based in London in 1939/40, he had ambitions, which were taken seriously in some quarters, to replace Churchill as the British PM!

The economic argument could have meant at some point the capital moved from London to Washington.

But remember that the United States didn't overtake Britain as a global economic power until after WWI and it was not really until after WWII that U.S. global economic and strategic dominance became manifest.

Before that, Britain was top dog globally for about 3 centuries.

	02-04-2004 05:54									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by DanS That's where I was going with this. Perhaps the US as an integral part of the empire would have made the UK a credible deterrent against Germany in World War I. History would look quite a bit different had Germany been deterred. Also, perhaps the US would have abolished slavery earlier without a civil war.

What's integral? Britain declared war upon Germany in name for the entire Empire, but it seems to me Canada and Australia could have said "no" towards joining in since they signed separate peace treaties with Germany at the end of the war. I'm sure that in such a "what if" scenario the US would have gathered enough autonomy to refrain from joining in as it historically did. If the Americans already "supported" the enemy during the 7 years war, why should they have felt any greater inclination to join in yet another European pitch-fight in 1914?

Besides, I don't really see what's any more imaginative about giving Australia and Canada more representatives in the British parliament, rather than giving them a large degree of autonomy.

	02-04-2004 06:00									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Britain declared war upon Germany

because the marched through Belgian land, who Britain had treaty with. A treaty which said Britain had to protect Belgian neutrality in any war. A treaty that would have applied to all of the other countries.