Win a copy of Spring Boot in Practice this week in the Spring forum!
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Tim Cooke
  • Ron McLeod
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Paul Clapham
Sheriffs:
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Henry Wong
  • Devaka Cooray
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Al Hobbs
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Piet Souris
  • Mikalai Zaikin
  • Himai Minh

New York is English ; Florida Spanish

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
If King George hadn't got a bee in his bonnet about something that's the way it would be to this day.

Do NYers feel more English and Floridians more Spanish today , I wonder ?

The weather differences would enforce this feeling....
[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I wonder how different history would have been if Britain [be nice Joe-mh]a king who wasn't mad at the time. Given the vast resources that the American continent had, keeping hold of it would have been worth a tax cut and allowing some self-rule. It probably wouldn't have been that hard to negotiate a settlement that would have kept the colonies loyal. There were other factors though - Britain was also suffering the side effects of the largest war that the world had ever seen (one large enough that it should probably have counted as WWI) against various other colonial powers which diverted a lot of its resources away from the Americas.
[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 225
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:
I wonder how different history would have been if Britain had had a competent (i.e. non-Tory) PM and a king who wasn't mad at the time. Given the vast resources that the American continent had, keeping hold of it would have been worth a tax cut and allowing some self-rule. It probably wouldn't have been that hard to negotiate a settlement that would have kept the colonies loyal. There were other factors though - Britain was also suffering the side effects of the largest war that the world had ever seen (one large enough that it should probably have counted as WWI) against various other colonial powers which diverted a lot of its resources away from the Americas.



Theres been a series on Discovery ( or similar channel ) about What-Ifs in history - what if Germany had invaded Britain ( the novel Fatherland also covered this ), what if the moors hadn't been stopped in southern France etc. Interesting, although they seem to dwell on battles rather than the social changes that would have come afterwards.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Had we not had a mad monarch at the time who thought a bauxite deposit in some remote jungle more valuable than a prime seaport we'd never have traded the Brits New Amsterdam for Surinam.
The USA might now be speaking Dutch...

I wonder how different history would have been if Britain a king who wasn't mad at the time.

[be nice Jeroen -mh]

I doubt there was such a thing as a Labour party or Tory party back then.I wonder how Chamberlain would have handled the American revolution. Peace in our lifetimes???
[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Somehow I doubt the English would have been able to establish a foothold in Florida. English china was born in Georgian times along with other trappings of the Industrial revolution and mass production. The Flying Jenny. The Steam Engine. The shopping mall. The NYers had a similar thirst for the comforts of life like tea and cotton.

Second Spanish Interlude


The Treaty of Paris in 1783 returned Florida to Spanish rule, much to the chagrin of Southern planters who would have rather the peninsular remain under English control than the collapsing Spanish system. Yet, for the next forty years the Spanish remained in Florida, probably in part to the capable leadership of one VICENTE MANUEL de ZESPEDES.

In 1763, the Spanish deserted Florida when the British took over

A lot of Brits emigrating to the USA head for the sun trap , Florida. Brits are a lot more comfortable with the Spanish these days and it's not uncommon for Spanish to be a second language .
[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:
I wonder how different history would have been if Britain [be nice Joe-mh]a king who wasn't mad at the time.[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]



Terribly sorry chaps and chappesses, I shall consider my wrists slapped . I shall have to save this post for future prosperity - its the first time I've been "moderated"

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

I doubt there was such a thing as a Labour party or Tory party back then.
[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]



Incase Jeroen's reply doesn't make much sense, I made a slightly rude comment about the Tory party. A better version of my comment would have been "things may have been different if Britain had had a Whig government (who were sympathetic to the colonists) instead of a Tory government who were more assertive towards the colonists.", and shown the following quote from wikipedia:


At the same time, political changes in Britain, itself, brought to the fore, leaders inclined to be more forceful and active in the governance of Britain's colonies. The Seven Years' War had resulted in a huge expansion of the British Empire thoughout the world, encouraging imperial thinking and ambition. The accession of George III introduced a politically active monarch into British politics for the first time in fifty years, and encouraged the rise of a new Tory party, which would govern under Lord North during the period of the American Revolutionary War. The authoritarian assertiveness of the Tories tended to be magnified in the perceptions of the colonists into intended tyranny. Whigs, who were inclined ideologically to be sympathetic to American aspirations to liberty and self-governance and relieved of the responsibility of governance, became important allies of the American cause in Parliament.



To answer Jeroen, there wasn't a labour party back then, but there was the Tory party, although very different from the modern one. Interestingly the Whig party of the time would later become the Liberal party and then form a part of the LibDems, so the old parties are still (claiming to be at least) hanging around today.
[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1416
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:
I wonder how different history would have been if Britain [be nice Joe-mh] had a king who wasn't mad at the time. Given the vast resources that the American continent had, keeping hold of it would have been worth a tax cut and allowing some self-rule. It probably wouldn't have been that hard to negotiate a settlement that would have kept the colonies loyal.[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]



Actually, the colonists would have been satisfied if only King George and Parliament had respected the terms of the original colonial charters. I guess the British government felt that "times have changed" so government needed to become more centralized (much like the feds are doing today wrt the individual states).
 
town drunk
( and author)
Posts: 4118
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I belive there was some incentive to tax, as the English felt that they had just endured a costly war defending the colonies?

M
 
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic