Political Solution to the American War of Independence/Dominion Colonialism

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I'd have to ask the forum experts - but were there any politicians who could have persuaded the British prior to 1780 to establish an updated version of the Dominion of New England to encompass their colonies on the eastern seaboard? i.e. Essentially a Westminster style parliament, but beholden to Britain in certain ways (e.g. Has to provide an Army Of New England.. or three)

I honestly see that as the best way to deal with the war or to circumvent it entirely.

It could be set up as a way to unite Loyalists, and those rebels who'd consider it acceptable - weakening the support the Continental Army had.

So my questions would be

1) Was there anyone that radical in the Anglo-American political world that could have pulled this off?

2) What powers could such a parliament have realistically had withheld?

3) What would be the most that the British Empire could have expected as its dues from this Parliament?

4) Could this be the beginning of a 'Dominion Model' of Colonialism by the British, where they start colonies with this governance in mind in order to head off revolts?

4b) Where could we see these colonies emerge? West of the Appalachians? India? South and East Africa? Australia?

5) What would the politics of such an Empire be like?
 
I'd have to ask the forum experts - but were there any politicians who could have persuaded the British prior to 1780 to establish an updated version of the Dominion of New England to encompass their colonies on the eastern seaboard? i.e. Essentially a Westminster style parliament, but beholden to Britain in certain ways (e.g. Has to provide an Army Of New England.. or three)

I honestly see that as the best way to deal with the war or to circumvent it entirely.

It could be set up as a way to unite Loyalists, and those rebels who'd consider it acceptable - weakening the support the Continental Army had.

So my questions would be

1) Was there anyone that radical in the Anglo-American political world that could have pulled this off?

2) What powers could such a parliament have realistically had withheld?

3) What would be the most that the British Empire could have expected as its dues from this Parliament?

4) Could this be the beginning of a 'Dominion Model' of Colonialism by the British, where they start colonies with this governance in mind in order to head off revolts?

4b) Where could we see these colonies emerge? West of the Appalachians? India? South and East Africa? Australia?

5) What would the politics of such an Empire be like?

1) Without a much earlier POD, there would be no way that anyone near power in London would tolerate an extra parliament for all the American colonies. It would be too strong an alternative What is possible is an acceptance of certain powers lying with the colonial assemblies in practice, in conjunction with some sort of representation for the colonials in Westminster. I suspect the British would merge some of the colonies together for this: places like Rhode Island and Delaware would probably be seen as too small to be taken seriously.

In terms of who might do such a thing, William Pitt the Elder was very amenable to a solution, and actually put together a couple of plans for colonial representation (including the Caribbean). However, he spent a spell in the wilderness, lost a lot of prestige when he accepted a peerage, and was ridden by gout during the time he got back into office and was sidelined by the hardliner Townshend. He also was an egotist that struggled to form alliances. The Rockingham Whigs were the biggest faction that supported compromise, and had sizable numbers, but the Marquess of Rockingham did not have the stature of Chatham at this time, and was detested by George III who kept him out of power.

2) Colonial assemblies would have had the same powers they practiced prior to 1765 in our timeline: control over internal affairs, local finances and the right to raise militias. Everything else would lie with Westminster. It's important to note to here that Westminster would insist that it maintained ultimate sovereignty in theory, but the colonial assemblies probably would not challenge this as long as they weren't intruded on in practice. One issue that would likely be a running sore is the printing of money.

3) Again, referring to local assemblies, the Westminster parliament would insist on a contribution to the exchequer. I imagine the likely solution would be for a set amount to be agreed, to be raised by the colonial assembly however they felt like.

4a) I think it's almost certain that such a model would set a precedent for elsewhere. However, it would likely be on the dominion model: it only comes in when they've reached a level of maturity to prove "responsible government".

4b) As with the dominions: anywhere with white settlement.

5) It could go a thousand different ways, depending on how you play it. Look at the politics of the metropole vs the dominions in the British Empire, and at the politics between Western states/territories and Washington DC for a guide.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The problem is that:

I'd have to ask the forum experts - but were there any politicians who could have persuaded the British prior to 1780 to establish an updated version of the Dominion of New England to encompass their colonies on the eastern seaboard? i.e. Essentially a Westminster style parliament, but beholden to Britain in certain ways (e.g. Has to provide an Army Of New England.. or three)

I honestly see that as the best way to deal with the war or to circumvent it entirely.

It could be set up as a way to unite Loyalists, and those rebels who'd consider it acceptable - weakening the support the Continental Army had.

So my questions would be

1) Was there anyone that radical in the Anglo-American political world that could have pulled this off?

2) What powers could such a parliament have realistically had withheld?

3) What would be the most that the British Empire could have expected as its dues from this Parliament?

4) Could this be the beginning of a 'Dominion Model' of Colonialism by the British, where they start colonies with this governance in mind in order to head off revolts?

4b) Where could we see these colonies emerge? West of the Appalachians? India? South and East Africa? Australia?

5) What would the politics of such an Empire be like?

The problem is that although anything along the above lines would have been welcomed by a lot of the Patriot leaders in the 1760s (recognition of the reality that after the conquest of New France, the North American empire had to be given political rights beyond military governors), the realities is the British/English had become as wealthy as they had by - among other things - restricting any sort of "local" political power.

These are the intellectual and spiritual heirs of Cromwell et al (despite the trappings of the Glorious Revolution and the restoration(s) of the monarchies) in terms of the primacy of the state and especially London, and were crushing a Scots rebellion as recently as the 1740s...

And it made perfect sense for the English; they'd weathered the (English) Civil War/War of the Three Kingdoms, had gotten through not one but two royal families being restored/given the throne, fought off the French and gained a second empire in India, and made LOTS of money ... why should they share political power with the like of a few disaffected rabble 3,000 miles away?:rolleyes:

The possibility of a North Atlantic commonwealth went out the window with the destruction of anything resembling a republic in England about the time of the Agreement of the People.

Best,
 
The problem is that although anything along the above lines would have been welcomed by a lot of the Patriot leaders in the 1760s (recognition of the reality that after the conquest of New France, the North American empire had to be given political rights beyond military governors), the realities is the British/English had become as wealthy as they had by - among other things - restricting any sort of "local" political power.

These are the intellectual and spiritual heirs of Cromwell et al (despite the trappings of the Glorious Revolution and the restoration(s) of the monarchies) in terms of the primacy of the state and especially London, and were crushing a Scots rebellion as recently as the 1740s...

And it made perfect sense for the English; they'd weathered the (English) Civil War/War of the Three Kingdoms, had gotten through not one but two royal families being restored/given the throne, fought off the French and gained a second empire in India, and made LOTS of money ... why should they share political power with the like of a few disaffected rabble 3,000 miles away?:rolleyes:

The possibility of a North Atlantic commonwealth went out the window with the destruction of anything resembling a republic in England about the time of the Agreement of the People.

Best,

The fact that leading parliamentary figures around this time thought otherwise suggests your deterministic views isn't accurate. The problem is that you got two hardline governments in a row into power. Replace them with a conciliatory group (either a Pitt-influenced government or the Rockinghamites) and you solve the problem. Heck, even a moderate faction, like the Pelhamites, could have kept kicking the issue down the road long enough that it didn't end in war.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Except that:

The problem is that you got two hardline governments in a row into power.

Except that the statement "The problem is that you got two hardline governments in a row into power" would seem to preclude the accomodationists, would it not?

Who were, after all, similarly precluded on such issues until after the 1837 rebellions in BNA/Upper Canada/Lower Canada ... much less anything resembling home rule for Ireland until the Twentieth Century.

The histories of the other "white" dominions (absent South Africa, of course) were less blood-soaked, but considering the colonization of Australia and New Zealand largely post-dated that of North America and the American Revolution, perhaps the answer is it took the powers-that-be in London a generation or so to learn the lesson that consent was cheaper than conquest?

Best,
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Except that the statement "The problem is that you got two hardline governments in a row into power" would seem to preclude the accomodationists, would it not?

Who were, after all, similarly precluded on such issues until after the 1837 rebellions in BNA/Upper Canada/Lower Canada ... much less anything resembling home rule for Ireland until the Twentieth Century.

The histories of the other "white" dominions (absent South Africa, of course) were less blood-soaked, but considering the colonization of Australia and New Zealand largely post-dated that of North America and the American Revolution, perhaps the answer is it took the powers-that-be in London a generation or so to learn the lesson that consent was cheaper than conquest?

Best,
Naff off, you simply CANNOT claim something is impossibly forward-thinking when ACTUAL PEOPLE - prominent ones - at that ACTUAL TIME held those ACTUAL VIEWS.
 
Except that the statement "The problem is that you got two hardline governments in a row into power" would seem to preclude the accomodationists, would it not?

Only if you think it was inevitable that those governments got into power. I actually simplified massively, given there were accommodationists in power, they just got undermined by George III. Going through the administrations from the end of the 7YW:

Grenville: Moderate. Brought in some of the inflammatory taxes but quickly retreated after the protests.
Rockingham: Highly conciliatory. Collapsed after he was undermined by the King's Friends.
Chatham: Should have been conciliatory but PM was sidelined with gout. The hardline Townshend exercised power instead.
Grafton: Conciliatory. Collapsed due to an unrelated foreign policy issue.
North: Very hardline. Led to the war.
Rockingham: Highly conciliatory. Ended the war on benign terms.

This is not evidence of an inevitably hardline British government who would never tolerate anything but the exploitation of America.

Who were, after all, similarly precluded on such issues until after the 1837 rebellions in BNA/Upper Canada/Lower Canada ... much less anything resembling home rule for Ireland until the Twentieth Century.

The histories of the other "white" dominions (absent South Africa, of course) were less blood-soaked, but considering the colonization of Australia and New Zealand largely post-dated that of North America and the American Revolution, perhaps the answer is it took the powers-that-be in London a generation or so to learn the lesson that consent was cheaper than conquest?

The extent of cherry picking is extreme.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
AND YET IN ACTUAL HISTORY...

Naff off, you simply CANNOT claim something is impossibly forward-thinking when ACTUAL PEOPLE - prominent ones - at that ACTUAL TIME held those ACTUAL VIEWS.

AND YET IN ACTUAL HISTORY - the history of politics made manifest by rotten boroughs and districts without any population that had been flooded by the North Sea, mind you - NONE of those ACTUAL PEOPLE could get elected and into power.:rolleyes:

And so Britain fought an eight-year-long war with a largely Protestant, merchantile and country-gentlemen, "more English than the English" society that had sent men off to fight and die for the crown as recently as the 1760s, whose basic request in 1775 were "the rights of Englishmen" ... and in doing so, brought in the French, Spanish, and Dutch, lost the temperate zone of the North American continent, and spent Adam Smith knows level of blood and treasure.

But no, that will be resolved by handwaving a parliamentary election ... or two.

Just like the same circles were eager to compromise with the Canadians (and Canadiens) in 1837-38, or the South Africans in 1880-81 and 1898-1901, or the Irish - ever.

Much less the Indians, West Indians, Africans, Asians, etc. over the next two centuries - that's why the Queen just opened to Commonwealth Parliament and welcomed Prime Minister Modi to take up residence at Number 10...

Oh wait, she didn't...

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Sorry, what evidence is there between 1765 and 1965 of

Only if you think it was inevitable that those governments got into power. I actually simplified massively, given there were accommodationists in power, they just got undermined by George III. Going through the administrations from the end of the 7YW:

Grenville: Moderate. Brought in some of the inflammatory taxes but quickly retreated after the protests.
Rockingham: Highly conciliatory. Collapsed after he was undermined by the King's Friends.
Chatham: Should have been conciliatory but PM was sidelined with gout. The hardline Townshend exercised power instead.
Grafton: Conciliatory. Collapsed due to an unrelated foreign policy issue.
North: Very hardline. Led to the war.
Rockingham: Highly conciliatory. Ended the war on benign terms.

This is not evidence of an inevitably hardline British government who would never tolerate anything but the exploitation of America.



The extent of cherry picking is extreme.

Sorry, what evidence is there between 1765 and 1815 (50 years, say) of the British/English establishment having ANY interest in government, on an equal basis and by consent of the "white" settler colonies?

Much less taking any concrete steps to create that?

Much less back in the UK, of course...when was Peterloo, again?

Come on.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
AND YET IN ACTUAL HISTORY - the history of politics made manifest by rotten boroughs and districts without any population that had been flooded by the North Sea, mind you - NONE of those ACTUAL PEOPLE could get elected and into power.:rolleyes:

William Pitt the Elder never got into power?

In the actual time period in question... it is not an extreme PoD for George III to pick someone else as his favorite, you know. It did not happen, but the point of alternate history is to look into other things and see how probable they were.
So, what happens if Lord Rockingham is supported by George III instead of Lord North?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Sorry, what evidence is there between 1765 and 1815 (50 years, say) of the British/English establishment having ANY interest in government, on an equal basis and by consent of the "white" settler colonies?

That's a straw man. There is a difference between "Government on an equal basis and by consent" (which I assume you here mean "Americans electing MPs to Parliament in proportion to their population") and some other policy - like benign neglect, or something otherwise "hands off", or even an agreement to allow the election of some MPs.
If you make it a dichotomy between "The Americans revolt" and "The Americans get one-man one-vote in the British Parliament", then you're simplifying a very complex issue - almost the entire planet in the 1750s didn't even have elections, let alone full universal male suffrage, nothing-less-or-revolt.

There's a reason the Intolerable Acts were called that - it's because they were Intolerable. That in and of itself implies that there was some level of control from London which would be "tolerable".


I'm starting to think the correct term for you is "manifest destiny". I don't use it lightly, but based on recent threads:


1) You think that there is no way to peacefully resolve the issue of the American Colonies.
2) You think the revolution was inevitably going to be successful once it started (meaning, by 1, that it was inevitably going to succeed *before* it started).
3) You are of the opinion that no European power can defeat the United States. (Specifically, since 1775.)
4) You hold that the US was fated to become a super power since the 1840s.

Which means, ipso facto, putting the logic chain together... that you think the only possible way as of about 1760 to prevent the United States from becoming a global superpower is for it to come out second best in the Mexican American War.


And that is why I use the term "Manifest destiny". Because the only war able to prevent the superpower status of the US, by your lights, is the one in which it imperialistically annexed half of Mexico in a spectacularly one sided war.
 
Sorry, what evidence is there between 1765 and 1815 (50 years, say) of the British/English establishment having ANY interest in government, on an equal basis and by consent of the "white" settler colonies?

Much less taking any concrete steps to create that?

Much less back in the UK, of course...when was Peterloo, again?

Come on.

No-one said anything about equal, but that's not needed to avoid war. All that is needed is some degree of devolution and no obviously egregious acts (like the closing of the entire port of Boston).

In terms of accepting some degree of local input into governance:

- The toleration of the status quo by colonial assemblies in America (which were run by consent of the governed) by the Grenville administration, the first Rockingham administration and the Grafton administration
- A number of parliamentarians supporting the American colonists' cause, including leading figure Edmund Burke
- Several plans written up by Pitt for colonial representation in Westminster
- Attempts by the second Rockingham ministry to provide legislative independence to the Irish parliament
- Several British generals refusing to fight in the ARW because they thought the cause was wrong
- A generous peace deal by the second Rockingham ministry for the end of the Revolutionary War

And this is a period which was also best by revolutionary fear from 1789-1815, more than half of your arbitrarily set period.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Almost anything is possible...

William Pitt the Elder never got into power?

In the actual time period in question... it is not an extreme PoD for George III to pick someone else as his favorite, you know. It did not happen, but the point of alternate history is to look into other things and see how probable they were.
So, what happens if Lord Rockingham is supported by George III instead of Lord North?

Almost anything is possible...:confused:

Many fewer are probable.:rolleyes:

Increasingly improbable are those that require repeated historical examples to fall by the wayside, don't you think?;)

There's an awful lot of "Great Man" theory going on here, and with all due respect, that pretty much has been supplanted since Herbert Spencer et al...

The Annales school and the longue durée works - the world and any human society is a complex place; "Great Men" at the most, reflect the social and cultural history of the era that produces them, as witness the respective fates of (say) John Lilburne et al vis a vis James Madison.

Best,
 

Saphroneth

Banned
There's an awful lot of "Great Man" theory going on here, and with all due respect, that pretty much has been supplanted since Herbert Spencer et al...

AND YET IN ACTUAL HISTORY - the history of politics made manifest by rotten boroughs and districts without any population that had been flooded by the North Sea, mind you - NONE of those ACTUAL PEOPLE could get elected and into power.:rolleyes:
Case rested. I think this is where I stop paying attention to you.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Let's see - a unified "Western" nation with the entire North American continent

That's a straw man. There is a difference between "Government on an equal basis and by consent" (which I assume you here mean "Americans electing MPs to Parliament in proportion to their population") and some other policy - like benign neglect, or something otherwise "hands off", or even an agreement to allow the election of some MPs.
If you make it a dichotomy between "The Americans revolt" and "The Americans get one-man one-vote in the British Parliament", then you're simplifying a very complex issue - almost the entire planet in the 1750s didn't even have elections, let alone full universal male suffrage, nothing-less-or-revolt.

There's a reason the Intolerable Acts were called that - it's because they were Intolerable. That in and of itself implies that there was some level of control from London which would be "tolerable".


I'm starting to think the correct term for you is "manifest destiny". I don't use it lightly, but based on recent threads:


1) You think that there is no way to peacefully resolve the issue of the American Colonies.
2) You think the revolution was inevitably going to be successful once it started (meaning, by 1, that it was inevitably going to succeed *before* it started).
3) You are of the opinion that no European power can defeat the United States. (Specifically, since 1775.)
4) You hold that the US was fated to become a super power since the 1840s.

Which means, ipso facto, putting the logic chain together... that you think the only possible way as of about 1760 to prevent the United States from becoming a global superpower is for it to come out second best in the Mexican American War.


And that is why I use the term "Manifest destiny". Because the only war able to prevent the superpower status of the US, by your lights, is the one in which it imperialistically annexed half of Mexico in a spectacularly one sided war.

Let's see - a unified "Western" nation with the entire North American continent as a resource base and open emigration from Europe and almost anywhere else where someone could scrape together the passage... and plenty of devious, ruthless, and gifted Type A personalities ready to take advantage of those realities.

What would you call it? Chance?:rolleyes:

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
And the liklihood of:

No-one said anything about equal, but that's not needed to avoid war. All that is needed is some degree of devolution and no obviously egregious acts (like the closing of the entire port of Boston).

In terms of accepting some degree of local input into governance:

- The toleration of the status quo by colonial assemblies in America (which were run by consent of the governed) by the Grenville administration, the first Rockingham administration and the Grafton administration
- A number of parliamentarians supporting the American colonists' cause, including leading figure Edmund Burke
- Several plans written up by Pitt for colonial representation in Westminster
- Attempts by the second Rockingham ministry to provide legislative independence to the Irish parliament
- Several British generals refusing to fight in the ARW because they thought the cause was wrong
- A generous peace deal by the second Rockingham ministry for the end of the Revolutionary War

And this is a period which was also best by revolutionary fear from 1789-1815, more than half of your arbitrarily set period.

And the liklihood of "some degree of devolution and no obviously egregious acts" based on the historical record is ... what, exactly?

Cripes, it took armed rebellion in 1837-38 for London to even give Upper and Lower Canada anything approximating responsible government ... you really think it was in the cards almost seven decades earlier for the Thirteen Colonies?

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
I am deeply aggrieved ... as are, I am sure, the

Case rested. I think this is where I stop paying attention to you.

I am deeply aggrieved ... as are, I am sure, the shades of Marc Bloch and Fernand Braudel, Herb Gutman, and a host of others...;)

Best,
 
At risk of entering a debate which I have very little desire to enter… I'd just like to make a little nitpick. The Dominion of New England was not exactly the sort of thing that one might wish to imitate to make the Americans happy; it was utterly unlike a 'Dominion' in the Canadian sense. It was a deeply unpopular, autocratic creation of King James II in his wish to establish greater personal control over several colonies (which is very much contrary to the time of George III, as anyone with the faintest knowledge beyond merely regurgitating revolutionary-era propaganda about an evil tyrant king—and I'd certainly put myself in the 'faintest knowledge' category there—would know; it was a matter of parliamentary control which George III then put himself behind, rejecting the wishes of the rebels who said that they were loyal to the King and hostile only to Parliament and even developed legal theory to support this principle, to do with the mechanics of the Acts of Union). It was thoroughly artificial, a great leap forward in democracy (in the Maoist sense—i.e. a great leap backward) and widely despised by the inhabitants, which is why, as soon as the Glorious Revolution got James II out of the way, the New Englanders immediately got rid of it, professing loyalty to the revolutionary regime in Great Britain as an excuse.

As for the actual subject of the thread (as opposed to a nitpick), I shall steer quite clear of that!
 
Top