[Boondock Saint]

*applauds Captain Hat*

It's forum members like you that convince me to bother coming to this forum.

[Piano Red]

Although it may damage the pride of some Americans, the colonies in what would be the USA were no where near as important to the British as the Caribbean or Asian for example.

If that's the case then why did the British go to such great lengths (i.e sending thousands of troops accross the Atlantic and fighting an 8 year war) to keep them?

[Boondock Saint]

If that's the case then why did the British go to such great lengths (i.e sending thousands of troops accross the Atlantic and fighting an 8 year war) to keep them?

I would say the same reason why Russia will go to such great lengths to keep Chechens under their thumb ... Pride and saving face can lead empires into taking extreme measures.

[Captain Hat]

*bows*

Thanks, Boon. I do my best!

[redstarline]

If that's the case then why did the British go to such great lengths (i.e sending thousands of troops accross the Atlantic and fighting an 8 year war) to keep them?

well there was a world war on at the time. Comapred to Jamaica etc the American colonies werent very important. Australia was a good replacement for somewhere to send convicts.

[Captain Hat]

Australia was a good replacement for somewhere to send convicts.

This made me chuckle because it's true.

[redstarline]

Do the (majority) of the current States in the Union who were not British colonies not resent the atention paid to the history of the 13 former colonies? Shouldnt equal attention be given to the french, mexican, or spanish or even the native american histories of the other states; or is the British history more interesting?

[Captain Hat]

Interest in the 'other' colonies is starting to grow, most notably, interest in New Netherland. I read a book earlier this year by Russel Shorto on New Amsterdam, "Island at the Center of the World."

The main reason you don't see much on the non-English colonies is probably because they were stunted. Spanish Florida after 1565 didn't extend much farther than the farms and citrus groves around St. Augustine and the French didn't get much farther than New Orleans and St. Louis in colonizing Louisiana. New Mexico (1609) wasn't all that heavily settled, and consisted mainly of Santa Fe and a few, far-flung missions. California wasn't even settled by the Spanish until the 1770's.

Although, I wouldn't mind reading a book about garisson life in Louisiana or Florida.

[Attila The Nun]

Don't forget that the Spanish mostly settled California to guard it from Russia.

[Captain Hat]

I don't know how true that is. The Russians barely settled Alaska. A few shacks on Kodiak Island and a few scattered trading posts don't really add up to much of a threat.

[Attila The Nun]

I believe there were Russian fur-traders who did go down to Cailfornia, but made no settlements.

[Boondock Saint]

I don't know how true that is.

It's true enough that the Spanish were concerned about it and decided a very small show of force was called for. What is also true is that Russia was not very involved with colonizing North America.

So you can say that the Spanish were acting against a threat that didnt actually exist, however the non-existance of the threat does not mean that the Spanish did not consider it.

[The Immortal Goon]

I don't know how true it is, but I was told once that a lot of what the Russians did was conversion of local tribes. So these trappers and colonists would go west and run in to Orthidoxish Natives speaking Russian with names like Ivan.

-TIG

[Crazyvichistan]

I'd be interested to learn more about that, it seems like an interesting concept.

[Captain Hat]

I wouldn't be too surprised if there was some truth to that rumor, almost all the colonial nations did the above, especially the French. Sacagawea, the famous Indian guide to Lewis and Clark knew French, and was married to a Frenchmen.

This was true with the Spanish, English, and Dutch.