Savior of the Empire: The Ministry of William Pitt

Savior of the Empire

1765 - 1767: North American colonial resistance to their British masters increases with the introduction of several “outrageous” bills, including the Stamp Act and Townshend Acts. William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, stands up for the colonists and, the next year, is appointed Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

1768: Prime Minister Pitt, in an attempt to save his failing ministry, proposes a radical idea, hoping to avoid the revolution he sees on the horizon in North America. Instead of forcing a potentially costly war (in terms of pride and men) with their North American colonies, Pitt proposes that they modify the Albany Plan of Union first presented to the British government in 1754 and rejected by King George II. Pitt advises King George III to modify the Plan and put it in place, thus assuring the obedience of the North American colonies.

George III, after months of arguing, agrees to accept the modified-Plan, on the grounds that William Pitt, who George has always hated, resigns his post. As his Ministry was failing anyhow, and the improvements in America weren’t likely to bring about any more popular support in Great Britain itself, Pitt agrees and resigns the day after the American Acts were signed by Parliament and King George III.

Robert Clive, the hero of India, is appointed by King George as the Governor-General of the Dominion of America, while George’s younger brother, William, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh becomes the only official noble in America and the personal representative of the British Royal Family. The Acts create an American Parliament, the only body capable of taxing the American colonies (although, they must pay a tax to the British government) and establishes a small, professional military to defend the American continent. At first, only the thirteen ‘traditionally’ American colonies (that is, all colonies excluding the Caribbean, Nova Scotia, and Quebec) sign the American Acts.
 
Walter_Kaufmann said:
Savior of the Empire

1765 - 1767: North American colonial resistance to their British masters increases with the introduction of several “outrageous” bills, including the Stamp Act and Townshend Acts. William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, stands up for the colonists and, the next year, is appointed Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

1768: Prime Minister Pitt, in an attempt to save his failing ministry, proposes a radical idea, hoping to avoid the revolution he sees on the horizon in North America. Instead of forcing a potentially costly war (in terms of pride and men) with their North American colonies, Pitt proposes that they modify the Albany Plan of Union first presented to the British government in 1754 and rejected by King George II. Pitt advises King George III to modify the Plan and put it in place, thus assuring the obedience of the North American colonies.

George III, after months of arguing, agrees to accept the modified-Plan, on the grounds that William Pitt, who George has always hated, resigns his post. As his Ministry was failing anyhow, and the improvements in America weren’t likely to bring about any more popular support in Great Britain itself, Pitt agrees and resigns the day after the American Acts were signed by Parliament and King George III.

Robert Clive, the hero of India, is appointed by King George as the Governor-General of the Dominion of America, while George’s younger brother, William, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh becomes the only official noble in America and the personal representative of the British Royal Family. The Acts create an American Parliament, the only body capable of taxing the American colonies (although, they must pay a tax to the British government) and establishes a small, professional military to defend the American continent. At first, only the thirteen ‘traditionally’ American colonies (that is, all colonies excluding the Caribbean, Nova Scotia, and Quebec) sign the American Acts.

Could work if there is a way to make sure the tax on the American Parliment is reasonable.
 
american nobles

IIRC the Massacusett Man that organizied the taking of Fort Louisbourg during the 1748 Wars became the first american born Baron. There were several more Men knighted during the French Indian War.
 

Glen

Moderator
Would George III make this deal? Seems as if he could be rid of Pitt just by waiting a bit...
 
Max Sinister said:
Darn, Glen, are you now bumping all the old threads to become #1?

He's not happy with commenting on a mere twenty threads a night. We just aren't posting enough topics to keep up with Glen.

@Glen: Do you sleep? Are there more than one of you? How do you keep multiple TLs in development and still find time to play Mosaic Earth and comment on every thread in the discussion forum?
 
Before the ARW most Founding Fathers saw themselves as ready to fight for their own states rather than America as an whole.

There is a school of thought that says most of the backwoods support for revolution arose from the nepotism, corruption and neglect by the States' governments - which ruled in the name of the Crown.

Also the states' governments made enough fuss about the Assembly after independence - the still current question of states' rights.

So neither the backswoodsmen nor the states' governments would like an American Parliament much. As for the urban poor and the lawyers who encouraged them, they had all read Tom Paine.
 

Thande

Donor
We normally say 'Premiership' rather than 'Ministry' to describe the time in power of a Prime Minister.
 

Glen

Moderator
Max Sinister said:
Darn, Glen, are you now bumping all the old threads to become #1?

No, more out of curiosity. I was doing it when responses were slow due to it being late night so I thought to go look at the very oldest threads and see what life was like back then.
 

Glen

Moderator
The Bald Imposter said:
He's not happy with commenting on a mere twenty threads a night. We just aren't posting enough topics to keep up with Glen.

@Glen: Do you sleep? Are there more than one of you? How do you keep multiple TLs in development and still find time to play Mosaic Earth and comment on every thread in the discussion forum?

I have been a bit insomniac recently...I do need to slack off.

I tend to go in spurts of activity and inactivity.

I'm good at idea generation, but need some help keeping on task.:rolleyes:
 

Glen

Moderator
Johnnyreb said:
Before the ARW most Founding Fathers saw themselves as ready to fight for their own states rather than America as an whole.

Yes and no. It was, after all, a CONTINENTAL army...

There is a school of thought that says most of the backwoods support for revolution arose from the nepotism, corruption and neglect by the States' governments - which ruled in the name of the Crown.

Which was still probably better than the nepotism and corruption of the British Parliament of the time.:rolleyes:

Also the states' governments made enough fuss about the Assembly after independence - the still current question of states' rights.

True, but what's your point here?

So neither the backswoodsmen nor the states' governments would like an American Parliament much. As for the urban poor and the lawyers who encouraged them, they had all read Tom Paine.

Huh? They managed to accept the Continental Congress and eventually the Congress laid out by the Constitution. So why wouldn't they accept an American Parliament?
 
Glen said:
I have been a bit insomniac recently...I do need to slack off.

I tend to go in spurts of activity and inactivity.

I'm good at idea generation, but need some help keeping on task.:rolleyes:

I feel your pain completely, though I'm not nearly as prolific as you.
 
I don't see what the corruption of the UK Parliament had to do with it - when the roads are not upkept or bridges fall down or you're not protected from Indians, you blame the government closest to you - in the case of the backwoodsmen, the states government. Have you never heard of the Bacon Rebellion? The point is, the states' governments wore the badge of the crown at the time.

The colonists accepted the Continental Congress because they were at war. It had no powers of taxation and was little more than a collection of ambassadors. It went on after the war, all the states arguing with it and I have to mention that the shape of the Federal Congress was not outlined and agreed until 1787, four years after the end of the ARW.

My points, which Glen assiduously seems to miss, are:-

(a) If the states had such difficulty shaping their own Federal Congress, the same thing would happen with an American Parliament under the Crown - It would be uphill work.
(b) It is unlikely the Americans would have accepted anything with a crown on it at the time.
 

Glen

Moderator
The Bald Imposter said:
I feel your pain completely, though I'm not nearly as prolific as you.

As I said before, I go in spurts. Sometimes I submerge for a week or two at a time.

I'll probably need to slack off for a little bit.
 

Glen

Moderator
Johnnyreb said:
I don't see what the corruption of the UK Parliament had to do with it - when the roads are not upkept or bridges fall down or you're not protected from Indians, you blame the government closest to you - in the case of the backwoodsmen, the states government. Have you never heard of the Bacon Rebellion? The point is, the states' governments wore the badge of the crown at the time.

Yes, I have heard of Bacon's Rebellion. However, since the ARW was primarily a revolt against the BRITISH government, and not the State Governments, I still don't see the relevance here. Are you claiming that the backwoodsmen would favor the British, feeling local government was failing them? If so, is there evidence that this actually happened (significantly more supporting British than Independence)? Furthermore, why would either influence their support or not of a British sanctioned Parliament of America? Its not their local government, after all.

The colonists accepted the Continental Congress because they were at war. It had no powers of taxation and was little more than a collection of ambassadors. It went on after the war, all the states arguing with it and I have to mention that the shape of the Federal Congress was not outlined and agreed until 1787, four years after the end of the ARW.

True. However, why did they consider themselves at 'war' given your comments? Wouldn't they seem to suggest they wouldn't take a side just because their legislatures did?

My points, which Glen assiduously seems to miss, are:-

I'm not trying deliberately to be dense...it just happens sometimes.:eek:

(a) If the states had such difficulty shaping their own Federal Congress, the same thing would happen with an American Parliament under the Crown - It would be uphill work.

Fair enough, but even it it were simply at the same level as OTL's difficulties with the Federal Congress, it should be able to be done.

(b) It is unlikely the Americans would have accepted anything with a crown on it at the time.

I don't see why that follows from your comments on blaming local government for their issues. What were their beef with the crown (other than the typical ones we know from the urban Americans)? Also, there were attempts at rapproachment even in the early years of the Revolution. A deal that satisfied American concerns would have been likely to be accepted.

The American Revolution in some ways was one of the most Conservative in history...
 
As for the American Revolution having been conservative...

I agree. Some at the time had talked o getting an American monarchy into order. Furthermore, much of the old British structure (i.e.: the states themselves) were left in place even after the war of independence.
 

Glen

Moderator
Wendell said:
I agree. Some at the time had talked o getting an American monarchy into order. Furthermore, much of the old British structure (i.e.: the states themselves) were left in place even after the war of independence.

Yeah. I believe reconcilliation was a real possibility even into the first years of the Revolution.
 
Since Canada only kicked off the "Dominion of ..."trend because the British are wusses (pressure from Americans not to use the word kingdom), it probably would have been the Kingdom of America, or the Kingdom of North America, or the Kingdom of British North America, etc...

This is of course a well disguised ~bump.


Do we get a ARW of sorts anyway? After all the Americans wanted a war and weren't terribly concerned with logic in going about to get it, so I'm unsure if simply being formed into a larger polity would change things. But I'm certainly no ARW scholar.
 
Top