Why didn't the United Kingdom give the New World the vote?

[Dr Strangelove]

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.

[Colon™]

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

[Krill]

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

[Colon™]

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

[Krill]

Why? We won both the wars.

[DanS]

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

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

[Dr Strangelove]

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.

[Alexander's Horse]

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.

[Krill]

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

[Whoha]

Re: Why didn't the United Kingdom give the New World the vote?

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.

[DanS]

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

In equal proportion to population?

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.

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.

[Whoha]

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]

[Alexander's Horse]

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.

[Colon™]

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.

[Krill]

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.