Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
7) White-Native American relations might have been better handled.
Thanks for the food for thought. I will say, however, that I don't know if it would have been better handled. I would be curious as to your thoughts on this and your ideas, but I feel like it was due to the major English migrations that relations with the Natives were so poor.
The British migration was quite unlike the Spanish and French empires in that the English brought over far more people and it was the English that was chiefly interested in displacing the Indians and settling on their land, and it was primarily the English that forced treaties upon the Indians after they had suffered military defeat.
It seems rational to me to believe that much of the problem was because of the large English migration and that if continued to rule, the same mistakes (i.e. Trail of Tears) would have been made.
That's what I was thinking - in the 20th century, with even no victorious American Revolution, you would not have any remaining European colonies on the North American mainland. What you would have is various break away nations from the colonies, with other revolutions popping up here and there in the 19th century, just like Mexico which was always at rebellion with Spain, and then itself.
You would have a shared culture that would develop from the early colonists that would in turn develop from their mother countries - English, French, Spanish, a little Russian. Those would develop into independent countries in the place of original settlements.
Then you would have the unexplored Western frontier. Which I would guess would depend on whoever settled it first, and then probably into armed disputes. It wouldn't be civil war, it would be continental war as these various nations fought over resources. So in the early and mid 1800's you would see these various break-away nations, either peacefully or by revolution, and then in the late 1800's instead of a bloody civil war you would get a bloody continental war to settle frontier borders once and for all. After that? Who knows, today there would possibly be 3 or 4 nations where the 50 states are, definetly less prosperious divided then they could be whole. The European based battles of the 20th century could have also turned North American into a battlefield.
Native Americans, under any scenario, would not fit into this picture. There fate would remain the same. Slavery? Not an issue - it would exist, trust me, even under British rule, as prosperious as it was to the agricultural society in the south, until it died a natural death as it did in Brazil in the late 1800's.
Slavery ended in Britton around 1800? free and availble land made slavery advance a far as it did . how would slavery continue with the limitted amount of free land ,the eventual distruction of the available lands and Europe's propensity to abolish the trade by 1800's. Could small regional goverments afford the cost of Killing Indians. I think the figure was something akin to $1,000 per indian Killed.
Last edited by thriftylefty; 03-23-2009 at 12:03 PM..
Reason: spelling
However, one also needs to consider that the Latin American countries might not have had successful independence movements, without the model of the USA having done so, and the entire western hemisphere might have languished under European rule for another century or two.
Yeah that's what I had trouble with after I wrote my post. No American Independence changes alot of things - it means no model for the latin american countries, it possibly means no political enlightenment in the "old world", which mean possibly no French Revolution, which means no Napoleanic Wars. Which means the European monarchies would remain and wars would exist, but none of the 20th centruy world wars, and the old war powers would have money and time to devote to it's colonies. But who knows, all the events could very well have occured still, just at a little different pace and different order. Labor movements and communism could have swept out the monarchies in Europe instead of democracies.
Slavery ended in Britton around 1800? free and availble land made slavery advance a far as it did . how would slavery continue with the limitted amount of free land ,the eventual distruction of the available lands and Europe's propensity to abolish the trade by 1800's. Could small regional goverments afford the cost of Killing Indians. I think the figure was something akin to $1,000 per indian Killed.
Well it's all theory - but my argument is, because there was virtually unlimited land in the new world and because it was so economically rewarding to use slaves as farm implements, slavery would continue...that is until social contstraints and techonological advancements made the institution of slavery uneconomic.
Like you said, slaves in Europe were of limited use because of land and lack of a large agricultural base. My suggestion was that the European powers were somewhat hypocritical in outlawing slavery, only after the point were they knew it was not of their economic interest to allow slavery. They had nothing to lose. They may have belayed that decision if they still had colonies in the agricultural belts of the New World.
Indians - killing indians was cheap and easy, it was managing indians that was more difficult and expensive. Reservations and treaties were unfavorable to the Indians, and also expensive to the U.S. - which is why so many treaties were dishonored and reservations overrun and moved. I expect Indians would have been treated much worse by any small regional governments, although they could have in theory allied with some governments against other governments (like they did in the French and Indian War) but, still, they would have eventually been pushed out.
Yeah that's what I had trouble with after I wrote my post. No American Independence changes alot of things - it means no model for the latin american countries, it possibly means no political enlightenment in the "old world", which mean possibly no French Revolution, which means no Napoleanic Wars. Which means the European monarchies would remain and wars would exist, but none of the 20th centruy world wars, and the old war powers would have money and time to devote to it's colonies. But who knows, all the events could very well have occured still, just at a little different pace and different order. Labor movements and communism could have swept out the monarchies in Europe instead of democracies.
Interesting so maybe the 1930's/1940's WW2 may have never happened in the first place with no American Revolution?
No Revolution henceforth no French Revolution henceforth no Napoleonic wars henceforth no Franco/Prussian war henceforth no WWI henceforth no WW2?
Possibly??
Last edited by Six Foot Three; 03-23-2009 at 12:33 PM..
Reason: Corrections - 6/3
Interesting so maybe the 1930's/1940's WW2 may have never happened in the first place with no American Revolution?
No Revolution hence no French Revolution hence no Napoleonic wars hence no Franco/Prussian war hence no WWI hence no WW2?
Possibly??
Yeah, the possibilities and permutations are endless....but also I don't discount that there is a certain pattern to follow in history that seems to be destiny, American Revolution or not, maybe it would happen a century after the actual events, but it would happen -
1.) That the Age of Elightenment would sweep out the European Monarchies eventually, to be replaced by some sort of government by the people. Weather that would morph into the beliefs of Karl Marx, without a Thomas Jefferson, who knows.
2.) European powers would remain at war. Maybe not Napolean, maybe not Hitler. But Germany would probably sill have wars with France. France would have wars with England, and Russia would have wars with Germany....all as they had been doing for centuries. Eventually a war would have happen (like our WW2) that would cause leaders to conclude that the price is too terrible to continue.
3.) That any colonies that exist in the New World would achieve independence...eventually - by force of arms or just because the Old War powers found them to expensive or bothersome to govern. Not the same countries, not a United States, but it would be a self governed New World.
Originally posted by Puddy4lyf
Thanks for the food for thought. I will say, however, that I don't know if it would have been better handled. I would be curious as to your thoughts on this and your ideas, but I feel like it was due to the major English migrations that relations with the Natives were so poor.
The British migration was quite unlike the Spanish and French empires in that the English brought over far more people and it was the English that was chiefly interested in displacing the Indians and settling on their land, and it was primarily the English that forced treaties upon the Indians after they had suffered military defeat.
It seems rational to me to believe that much of the problem was because of the large English migration and that if continued to rule, the same mistakes (i.e. Trail of Tears) would have been made.
That's a good point. I was basing that on the (vague) assumption that White/Native relations are better in Canada than here. I don't know if this is correct, but I thought the British handled Canadian settlement (vis a vis First Nations) better than we did. Could be wrong though, and I need to research it some more.
I am an advocate of the school that believes that the world will unfold as it should, and historical events are only detours along the way to what will ultimately come about anyway. For example, the Industrial Revolution would have occurred regardless of palace intrigues, and international tensions would reflect themselves through terrorism at about this time, no matter what happened in Philadelphia in 1776 or the trenches in 1914. The details remain amorphous, but the fundamentals come out the same in the end.
I am an advocate of the school that believes that the world will unfold as it should, and historical events are only detours along the way to what will ultimately come about anyway. For example, the Industrial Revolution would have occurred regardless of palace intrigues, and international tensions would reflect themselves through terrorism at about this time, no matter what happened in Philadelphia in 1776 or the trenches in 1914. The details remain amorphous, but the fundamentals come out the same in the end.
I tend to agree with this...Reminds me of a line I just read:
"Yet tragedy and history differ in that no curtain decends on historical life, there is no end of the play and no final resolution." Herwig Wolfram from "The History of the Goths"
Soccer would be football and football would be ??? oh God - No superbowl!
Would we have the right to Bear Arms?
Would we have had Hulk Hogan?
Those are just quick observations - but I still always do wonder How in the world did the Colonists defeat the vaunted Red Coats?? Still is mind boggling...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
