 |
| |
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
The economic argument could have meant at some point the capital moved from London to Washington. |
It's tough to know. While the large majority would be Americans, the financial center of gravity still might be the City in London.
quote:
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. |
While Colon is right that you are wrong in this, World War I killed the empire, as it sold off its vast array of economic crown jewels to the US.
quote:
Before that, Britain was top dog globally for about 3 centuries. |
And my hypothesis is that Britain could have continued this dominance indefinitely, if they had given proportional representation in parliament to the New World. Why did the UK wait 50 years to address the enlightenment more fully in politics?
As it stands, the US could lose dominance within the next half century. If the US included the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, then the US could dominate indefinitely as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whoha
|
 |
The TOC is supposed to be classified guys...
Dec 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
It's tough to know. While the large majority would be Americans, the financial center of gravity still might be the City in London.
While Colon is right that you are wrong in this, World War I killed the empire, as it sold off its vast array of economic crown jewels to the US.
And my hypothesis is that Britain could have continued this dominance indefinitely, if they had given proportional representation in parliament to the New World. Why did the UK wait 50 years to address the enlightenment more fully in politics?
As it stands, the US could lose dominance within the next half century. If the US included the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, then the US could dominate indefinitely as well. |
we got the 1913 statistics for gdp per capita, US ~5100 UK ~4900. the US had 3 times as many people on top of that. the US overtook UK before ww1.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Colon
|
 |
Antwerp, Colon's Chocolate Canard Country
Jan 1970
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Krill
THe point I was making is that IF it had been a single country, then EVERYONE would have gone to war, USA, Canada, Australia, UK, etc |
Or everyone would have stayed out of it.
Besides, and Horsie may correct me on that one, AFAIK Canada and Australia voluntarily contributed to the war, so I don't see why US wouldn't have had the power to tell Britain to shove it.
The whole empire never was a real unified country in the first place, like today's UK would be, no empire ever has been.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Colon
|
|
Antwerp, Colon's Chocolate Canard Country
Jan 1970
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS As it stands, the US could lose dominance within the next half century. If the US included the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, then the US could dominate indefinitely as well. |
And if France would have held onto half of Africa, including Congo since they also would have held onto Belgium, and if Spain and Portugal would have held onto Latin America, and if Rome would have held onto Spain, France and Britain, then over half the globe would be governed by a super-behemoth parliament in Rome. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Colon
In that case, would you ever have bothered signing the damn treaty in the first place? And if you would, wouldn't you actually have been less of a deterrent because you would have held back Britain from joining in? Heck, wouldn't you have booted Britain by then, just to get rid of those whiney limeys with their petty European squabbles? |
The treaty was signed in the 1830s as part of Belgium's independence from Holland. Remember that at the end of the Napoleonic Wars the Allies wanted a strong nation to the north of France to dissuade future French aggression, so they united Belgium with the Netherlands. By the 1830s it was clear that the union wasn't going to work out, so Belgium became an independent nation. The British signed a treaty guarenteeing the small new nation's integrity primarily as a warning to the French. Heck, Germany wasn't even a nation yet! At the time of the treaty's signing though Britain would still have been the larger partner.
You have to wonder how a continued union between the two countries would have affected the cultures of both. Americans might have developed an even more euro-centric culture. Mind you that at the turn of the century American culture among the wealthy classes was quite euro-centric. As America came closer to England not only because of increasing political influence but also because of the influence of the telegraph and cheap newspapers certainly England would have adopted more American culture.
Finally, I'd wonder what would happen on the day when it became apparent that the United Kingdom would have to concede a majority in Parliament to the Americans, presuming conditions under which British North America was granted full political integration and the "one man- one vote" rule was operative. Would the Brits have really been able to do it, or would they try to change the rules in order to retain a majority?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starchild
With Canada and Australia however, they were not independent countries that required Acts of Union. They were countries created by Parliament itself and tied to the Parliament though the various constitutional arrangements. Their self-rule was effectively the same as the current "self-rule" Scotland has in the UK. Local parliaments to deal with local matters but ultimately, the buck stopped and started in London. Sending MP's to London wasn't necessary or even considered because that simply wasn't the arrangement relating colony to coloniser. Remember, until recently (ie, the early 20th century) dominions like Canada and Australia still had to go to war whenever the UK said so.
Then again, take what I say with a grain of salt as I am not a UK Constitutional expert. |
Best so far on the topic, but not quite right.
I don't think adding seats for us in Parliament was ever considered. It's an interesting proposition, even though I doubt anyone ever proposed the idea. What happened was more like...
First, remember that we are not talking about Canada in 1860, we are talking about 6 (or 7 depending on how you count) different colonies and a massive area of unsettled territory. Many of the colonies had very little in common with each other, and in fact several of them stayed on as colonies after Confederation in 1867. Several joined soon after 1867, but the last did not join until 1949 after a failed attempt at independence on their own. Interestingly, one of the colonies, Nova Scotia, had very anti-Confederation feelings. The 'provincial' elections there in 1867 led to an 'anti' government who promptly set about seeking ways to repeal their predecesors' signatures on the documents. Their interest in the topic waned as they realised more and more that their only alternative was repugnant as it involved republicanism.
You have to go back a ways to find the origins for the albatross that eventually was hatched by the British North America Act of 1867 (Canada's 'Constitution' until 1982).
In 1837 there were rebellions in both Canadas (Ontario and Quebec). These rebellions were fueled by some of the same tinder that had sparked the American colonies to rebel 60 years previous. Both were put down, but the British government was interested in finding ways to avoid repetitions in British North America, and elsewhere. They sent one Lord Durham (aka Radical Jack) to serve as GG of all of the colonies in British North America. He was provided with able and experienced colonial staff and tasked with providing suggestions to London on a future course of action. He only stayed 5 months, but it appears he was quite astute (for his time). Upon returning to London he filed what became known as Durham's Report.
Durham suggested three things. First, he recommended colonial self-government. Local matters should be dealt with by the locals, with only big issues like foreign policy, inter-Empire trade, and Constitutional matters being decided in London. He also suggested that the advisors to the Governors General should be drawn from the local Assemblies and that they should abide by the wishes of those representatives. He further suggested the union of the 2 Canadas as a way for the older, more established Lower canada to aid the development of the newer 'frontier' of Upper Canada.
As I mentioned, his nick was Radical. What DanS proposes as a what-if today sounds common sensical. However, the granting of self government (essentially what Durham recommended) was unheard of in his day.
The only porposal of his to be adopted soon was that Upper and Lower Canada be joined into the United Province of Canada (1841). This union was reversed in 1867, but the idea of uniting to promote development would remain important.
Now, go back a bit farther. When the American colonies fought for and won their independence, there were a large number of colonists loyal to the Crown and who fought against or at least did not cooperate with the revolutionaries. Where did they all go after Yorktown? Many of them, the United Empire Loyalists as they are known here-abouts, went North. Some settled in the existing colonies that remained British and many went farther West to begin the foundations for the colony of Upper Canada.
Now, fast forward to 1864. The Civil War is coming to a close. The British are wary of the growing power of the Union. There are Americans in the administration making noises about the wrongs done by Britain in aiding the South. By 1865, the Yankees have a large, hardened Army in the field, and they are casting glances northward. Britain does not want to have to pay to defend BNA from the Union. They also do not want to lose the colonies to the Union Army.
Now add to the mix that the sons and daughters of those who had stayed loyal to Britain, or hostile to the Yankees (if you're French) are a bit concerned about 2 things. Better government is one, and not being dragooned into the Union is the other. About this time someone in London unearths Lord Durham's report, and those involved in BNA and London begin to wonder if the hair-brained scheme might not just work.
Responsible, non-British, government in BNA might keep the Yanks out, and it will certainly satisfy local wanna-bes with more power than they dreamt of having. If the Governor General of Nova Scotia is listening to the populace and resisting the idea, then sack him and send a new one with express instructions to encourage cooperation in the scheme.
Thus the confluence of events, desire for better government in the colonies, and fear of the growing power of the Union came together from 1864 to 1867 and Confederation was hammered out. It became fact when Westminster passed the British North America Act, which was proclaimed in the newly minted Dominion of Canada on July 1, sort of as a 'here's a stick in your eye' to the Yanks.
Beyond that, our independence grew with time and without ammendment to the BNA Act. Our entry into WW1 was pretty well automatic, but we insisted on signing the peace ourselves (as someone else mentioned) in the aftermath of the blood-letting. The last time the monarch or one of his or her representatives got seriously involved was in the 1920's and even though he had good cause, the battle was lost to bigger concepts. By 1939, our upstart PM was of the opinion that entry into a new war with Germany would have to be done by his government's choice and with the consent of Parliament. That delayed our entry for 9 days while far flung MPs caught trains back to Ottawa, debated and decided that it was our decision, and then promptly decided to declare war, as if there was ever any doubt.
What Britain did with Canada lent support for what then happened elsewhere. The devolution of the colonies into the Empire with Dominions was underway. In a way, I think it strengthened the Empire and made it last longer than it would have otherwise.
Even to this day, should Britain (or Australia) ever be in real peril there would be a considerable sentiment to lend direct aid, at least in Canada. There would certainly be interest in more trade within the Commonwealth if it were more practical. The Empire may not be dead entirely. perhaps it is just sleeping. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
Prior to faster means of communication the American colonies could have sent Reps to parliament for terms of office. Instead of the Rep being able to run for office he could have been replaced at the end of his term with a new Rep.
After it became feasible due to quicker transportation and communication methods, the Reps could run for consecutive terms.
Instead of having america take over the parliament it would be more likely that parliament would add seats as new political units(state, county, province) were formed. These political units would not vote as block i.e. North American but would have the same political parties in all the units and would vote along party lines as they do now.
ex. tories in Texas, Maine, Manchester, and New South Wales
Even if the financial and population center changed that does not mean that the capital would need to be moved.
This is a good question. Harry Turtledove offers a take on this in his book The two Georges.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:35
|
|
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. |
We were given PMs. See above, but we were not given the boot. The Empire evolved in the only way that it could have if survival were an issue. Take the WWs for instance. The people of Quebec would have revolted had they been conscripted by order from London, no matter if they had MPs there. They still rioted when conscription was introduced from Ottawa, but it was managed.
For other members of the Commonwealth, there were irritants stemming from the conduct of the wars. We didn't have to revolt, since we already had independence. What we did do is refuse to go to war under British officers. In Canada's case, that refusal crept up the ranks between 1915 and 1939. After Second Ypres the Canadian government insisted on Canadian regimental commanders. After later battles it became divisional commanders, and then corps. By 1939, we demanded our own Army command, and only relented in some select cases due to pressure back home to do something with the Army prior to the Second front.
So, things that would have led to dissention and revolt led instead to claims for more autonomy that could not be refused. After all, it's not like the Brits could have sent the Red Coats in to suppress Canada or Australia after independence had been granted. It was a one way ticket.
Direct representation in Westminster would be silly though. Boil it down, and the UK is simply another province/state, or 2, or 3 if you push it. The British Parliament has a lot of business to consider that is crucial for the areas it directly governs in the UK that mean squat to people in Ohio or New South Wales. Aside from losing the 13 colonies, the Brits did a very admirable job of first divesting itself of the bad old trappings of Empire, and then cloaking themselves in some of the better, newer Imperial garb. Not in all cases, but in some.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
Although smaller than the U.S. , Britain has a considerable population and a sizable GDP. In a situation in which the U.S. remained apart of the British Empire, Americans would identify themselves as British or American subjects of the queen rather than American. It would be more important what state you are from than being American.
Britain would have so much to gain from this union that it would not really matter if there were a lot of seats that were outside of British mainland. These seats would be divided by there borders and there would be only a british national identity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Dan, it's pointless to argue about this because it depends how you measure it but I think the consensus of historians is WWI started the process of decline of British economic and financial power. This process continued through the Great Depression to the end of World War II when there was no longer any doubt that Britain was no longer a world power. At the same time American power was rising all the time. |
Yes, I think Colon's point was that regardless of what happened to the empire, American power was rising all the time. This is undoubtedly true.
Of course, I agree that the US assuming its place in the sun wasn't until the end of WWII, largely by American disinclination to get involved in geopolitics outside of its own backyard. And the empire's financial status was destroyed by WWI.
Really, I agree that arguing over a 30-year period is rather pointless for this thread. It is just important to note that the anglophonics' rather synthetic political divisions are what stopped the empire and what is stopping the US from being top dog indefinitely. The switchover in top dog status happened sometime between 1880 and 1945. We're adding population at a furious clip (about twice the rate of China), but it may not be enough by ourselves.
Last edited by DanS on 02-04-2004 at 20:27
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-04-2004 06:04
|