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

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Is that what you mean?

No, I meant I confused the Napoleonic wars with the 7 years one in one of my previous posts.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Krill 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.

Do you think that would have convinced the Americans? If you assume America would have developed as it did, and has a population and industrial output of nearly 3 times as large as Britain by 1914, would they have slavishly followed their masters into a war because they signed some treaty with some midget in Europe? (Horsie is wrong when he says the US' economy didn't overtake Britain's until after WW1 BTW)

[Colonâ„¢]

Besides, when Germany invaded Belgium they assumed Britain wouldn't join in.

[DanS]

would they have slavishly followed their masters

My hypothetical assumes that we would have been the masters, by virtue of population and proportional voting!

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by DanS
My hypothetical assumes that we would have been the masters, by virtue of population and proportional voting!

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?

[Colonâ„¢]

Bah, I hate what-if debates!

[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

[DanS]

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.

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.

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]

Originally posted by Colon


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.

the same economic considerations that for all practical purposes got us into ww1 in the first place. If the English lost all that business we did with them was gone

[Whoha]

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.

[DanS]

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?

Who knows? But we wouldn't have made all of the interocking secret treaties. Those are just dumb.

You suck in what-if debates!

[Colonâ„¢]

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.

[Krill]

Or everyone would have stayed out of it.

That is true.

[Colonâ„¢]

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]

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?