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

[SlowwHand]

In the early to mid 1850's, England controlled 3/4 of the land mass, and 1/2 the population in the world.


Just a little reminder.

[DanS]

And how could the colonial keep in close touch with the concerns and the sentiments of their constituency?

This is much less of a concern than some believe in this thread. The fact is that for a century, because of the distances involved, congressmen went home only once or twice a year. Therefore, parliamentarians going home only once a year wouldn't have made much difference in any event.

Admittedly, I don't know the travel times for Australians to London. That might be a different story.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
In the early to mid 1850's, England controlled 3/4 of the land mass, and 1/2 the population in the world.


Just a little reminder.

no we didn't. at its height, britain controled 1/4 of the world with around 1/4 of its population.

[SlowwHand]

Sorry, Cockney. You need to re-read your information.


Learn about your roots.

[C0ckney]

ummm, unless you are talking about 'informal empire' (the british zones of influence in china and persia etc.) then i'm pretty sure about those figures

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Sikander


The U.S. surpassed Britain in GDP in the 19th century, and by the turn of the century produced about twice what Britain did. Certainly Britain was more influential, but in raw economic power it wasn't even close.

It really depends how you cut the numbers. Britain funded much of America's and global expansion. Some historians mark the shift of economic power to when Britain became a debtor nation, which brings the shift back more to WWI. But Britain still ruled the seas after WWI, it's merchant fleet dominated the world and global trade. London was still the financial capital of the world.

You also need to add to British economic power all of its colonies - Americans tend not to do that. But these were seen as indivisible from British economic power - that means Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and all the coloured colonies. Until after WWII about a third of the world was either a British colony or under British domination, including China. British naval flotillas patrolled China's great rivers. Same in Latin America, this was British not American dominated.

One interesting example here is the Middle East. Britain did not colonise all of the Middle East but British companies controlled the oil trade until after WWII. Britain was a powerhouse but fatally flawed because it's wealth depended upon race and empire.

Interestingly you could argue Roosevelt did Britain in more than Hitler by insisting on decolonisation after WWII.

Another thing you Americans have no sense of is what it was like to be part of the British empire if you were a British citizen, and Australians were British citizens. There were extraordinary opportunities. You could move around the empire without a passport, trade and invest anywhere, always protected by British rule of law and the British colonial forces. It was quite an extraordinary thing, like Roman times but on a global scale. There were a lot of benefits for the British of all classes.

[Seeker]

Travel time: in the late 18th early 19th century crossing the Atlantic is no mean feat.

MPs would be totally disconnected from their ridings.

On second thought...how is this different from today?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

I don't think the hypothetical superstate would have ever materialized.

A large chunk of the 13 colonies' population was NOT British. Their were Dutch, German, and others. Remember that the United States chose English as its language by just one vote over German.

There would have always been friction between New England (current US) and Britain. Canada was not as densely populated as the 13 colonies and would not have had the booming economy as early on. There was also an independent and self reliance mentality in the citizens of the 13 colonies.

The rift was that the colonies viewed themselves as fully functional states and the Crown viewed them as wilderness territories making it unlikely that Britain would have granted them the representation being discussed.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Remember that the United States chose English as its language by just one vote over German.

http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/german.htm

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/german.htm

You need to read my post before you ASSUME I said something I didn't.

I did NOT say "official language" as TO THIS DAY the United States does NOT have an official language. I said they chose English over German by one vote which they did and the laws and proceeding were in English as opposed to German which set the precident for the language American government would use in the future.


Your link simply confirms and backs up by post.

[DinoDoc]

How could there have been a one vote majority if no vote ever took place on the subject?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I said they chose English over German by one vote which they did and the laws and proceeding were in English as opposed to German which set the precident for the language American government would use in the future.

"A proposal before Congress in 1795 merely recommended the printing of federal laws in German as well as English."

English was not in danger of being supplanted by this debate.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I don't think the hypothetical superstate would have ever materialized.

A large chunk of the 13 colonies' population was NOT British. Their were Dutch, German, and others. Remember that the United States chose English as its language by just one vote over German.

There would have always been friction between New England (current US) and Britain. Canada was not as densely populated as the 13 colonies and would not have had the booming economy as early on. There was also an independent and self reliance mentality in the citizens of the 13 colonies.

The rift was that the colonies viewed themselves as fully functional states and the Crown viewed them as wilderness territories making it unlikely that Britain would have granted them the representation being discussed.

Over Dutch, not German! You revisionist!

Otherwise, good post.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I don't think the hypothetical superstate would have ever materialized.

A large chunk of the 13 colonies' population was NOT British. Their were Dutch, German, and others.

More importantly about one quarter of the population was Scottish, who had much more reason to hate the English than the Dutch or Germans. A large portion of the Scots who crossed the Atlantic had been dispossesed of their lands by the English in the early 18th century.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/german.htm

Hey what's up with that stuff, my history books, or wherever else I read it said Dutch.