> When territories are unable to be held on to they are no longer territories of their metropole but independent states. In other words, you redefine words to

> When territories are unable to be held on to they are no longer territories of their metropole but independent states. In other words, you redefine words to avoid admitting any flaws in your argument. The United States was a territory of the British Empire. The British Empire failed to "overrun" them when it got "upset enough" (your words). So your argument fails for this case. You can't change that by redefining words. > The US was heavily settled by the time it gained independence it could hardly be called a colony anymore at that point. Excuse me? Being "heavily settled" in no way prevents a place from being a territory of a foreign empire. The population of India during British rule was far larger than the population of the British colonies in North America in the 1770s. That didn't stop India from being a territory of the British Empire. > a large Earth based nation capable of colonizing other worlds Colonizing other worlds is a lot easier than controlling them from tens of millions of miles away once they're colonized. The former just takes enough people willing to make the trip and a spaceship that can make the journey. The latter takes the ability to project overwhelming military force across that distance, which is a lot harder. Also, I am not saying that, for example, a Mars colony must become independent. I'm simply saying that whether or not it does will depend on the motivations of the people in the colony. If those people remain loyal to Earth, the colony will. If those people stop being loyal to Earth, they will start acting independently, and there won't be a lot that Earth can do about it.