What if England tried to pre-empt the revolution through arrests and other measures? Thomas Jefferson in 1774 wrote “A Summary View of the Rights of British America” this basically said that the allegiance to England was only voluntary. If the English had of arrested Thomas Jefferson immediately after he wrote this, would that have helped to stop the revolution from ever occurring or would it have just increased tension?
WI: England tries to pre-empt the American Revolution.
- Thread starter hasdrubal barca
- Start date
Would just have increased tension.
"OH MY GOD, BRITAIN'S SUPPRESSING FREE SPEECH! FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!"
We'd lose Jefferson if they executed him for treason - he was a brilliant man. I don't doubt someone else would take his place though. Also, Federalists would gain more power with the absence of Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican figurehead.
"OH MY GOD, BRITAIN'S SUPPRESSING FREE SPEECH! FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!"
We'd lose Jefferson if they executed him for treason - he was a brilliant man. I don't doubt someone else would take his place though. Also, Federalists would gain more power with the absence of Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican figurehead.
Exactly, if the British decide to start political arrests with Jefferson as the first among man you probably get +15-30% of the colonist population actively supporting your rebellion as the British are actively arresting even mild dissidents. There is a difference between taking down firebrands and arresting peaceful protestors.
If you want to preempt the American Revolution have George III agree to meet with colonial representatives in Philadelphia and hammer out some sort of Colonial Assembly in 1774 or 1775. If the King himself travels to the colonies it would give an impression that he cares enough about the situation to see to the matter personally despite the distance and danger involved with travel, it would also give a major boost to the Colonies to see the King they answer to but who has never set foot on American soil.
For added points permit the settlement and development of Vandalia (OTL West Virginia), Transylvania (approx. OTL Kentucky), OTL Tennessee, OTL Ohio (British were planning to name this but I forget, maybe Charlotia?), and OTL northern Georgia. Move the settlement boundaries to the Ohio River, Mississippi River (with protection of the natives and perhaps recognition of the Cherokee state out of New Echota), and OTL Ohio. Bring all North American colonies into the Assembly with two representatives each and have them elect ten MPs from amongst themselves. Maybe permit easier settlement of English colonists loyal to the crown somehow?
Who would they arrest him with? It was hard enough for customs officials (the only fully British authorities in the colonies) to arrest smugglers, and those smugglers had to be taken and tried in Halifax, as juries in the 13 colonies would acquit them.
Arresting a member of the Virginia gentry from the other side of the ocean for seditious writing and actually keeping him in prison would be nigh impossible, and would cause a huge furor even if they could pull it off.
Oh, also, by late 1774 the Revolution was essentially already starting, locking up a few rebellious assemblymen wouldn't do much to stop it, even if they could get to them.
Arresting a member of the Virginia gentry from the other side of the ocean for seditious writing and actually keeping him in prison would be nigh impossible, and would cause a huge furor even if they could pull it off.
Oh, also, by late 1774 the Revolution was essentially already starting, locking up a few rebellious assemblymen wouldn't do much to stop it, even if they could get to them.
Probably the best way to pre-empt the revolution would be to set up two regional assemblies in (say) 1765-7: one in the North and one in the South. They'd be given some tax-raising powers, and they could decide whether they want to rely on the militia, raise their own regulars, or pay for British troops. Their revenue would come from customs receipts, so they'd have a vested interest in stamping out smuggling...
The advantage of this set-up is that the two assemblies will have very little in common, so Britain can play one off against the other.
The advantage of this set-up is that the two assemblies will have very little in common, so Britain can play one off against the other.
So the solution to avoiding the Revolution is for Britain to let the colonists have what they want - the best of both worlds, where if things get really bad British troops will come bail them out and the Royal Navy will protect them at sea, but they don't have to pay a clipped farthing to the government for it.
Leaving aside mercantalism (a problem unrelated to parliamentry authority over taxation) - what does Britain get out of this "compromise"?
As OTL showed, it can trade with the Americans and be traded with by the Americans with them paying their own way, so there's no economic benefit at all to American colonies that won't pay a cent to the Exchequer.
That stated, because it needs to be remembered when trying to work out better policies for Britain . . .
I think a policy worth exploring would be something where the colonial autonomy within their own affairs (as does not relate to the larger issues of the empire) is made de jure, but the obligation of the colonists - as British subjects - to pay as much as any other Briton whose rights they want. You want your rights acknowledged, acknowledge your obligations.
And vice-versa. If the colonists are willing - and able - to raise revenue themselves, so long as they pay their share, the only question is how "their share" is determined, which is beyond me (and probably the average MP -or- Patriot - this would take some care and time).
Keeps the issue one of making sure that the colonists are meeting their obligations (while making it clear Parliament is meeting its own), rather than the Parlimentrian position dissolving into "We have the right to demand anything" rather than what was th original reason for the stepped up enforcement of customs etc. in the first place. That was a position that played to all of the government's weaknesses - both with the colonies and with the Opposition.
Leaving aside mercantalism (a problem unrelated to parliamentry authority over taxation) - what does Britain get out of this "compromise"?
As OTL showed, it can trade with the Americans and be traded with by the Americans with them paying their own way, so there's no economic benefit at all to American colonies that won't pay a cent to the Exchequer.
That stated, because it needs to be remembered when trying to work out better policies for Britain . . .
I think a policy worth exploring would be something where the colonial autonomy within their own affairs (as does not relate to the larger issues of the empire) is made de jure, but the obligation of the colonists - as British subjects - to pay as much as any other Briton whose rights they want. You want your rights acknowledged, acknowledge your obligations.
And vice-versa. If the colonists are willing - and able - to raise revenue themselves, so long as they pay their share, the only question is how "their share" is determined, which is beyond me (and probably the average MP -or- Patriot - this would take some care and time).
Keeps the issue one of making sure that the colonists are meeting their obligations (while making it clear Parliament is meeting its own), rather than the Parlimentrian position dissolving into "We have the right to demand anything" rather than what was th original reason for the stepped up enforcement of customs etc. in the first place. That was a position that played to all of the government's weaknesses - both with the colonies and with the Opposition.
Last edited:
Elfwine. Your pointless anti-Americanism is showing, again.
The colonists were trading under mercantilism, which is why they paid less taxes. It's central to American complaints, since suddenly they had to follow mercantile laws whilst paying regular taxes.
They didn't have the 'best of both worlds'. John Adams noted that if England gave representation they will pay taxes, or they can keep the classic mercantile laws but not be forced to pay taxes. As in, rights of Englishmen. The whole equality business, you know?
Just more peoples under a colonial empire being taxed to the maximum, apparently, is what is 'fair' to you.
No, my "I have a problem with selfish hypocrites who claim to be concerned with liberty." is showing again.
If I was anti-American, I'd be proposing that the British government decimate (in the original sense of the term) Providence and neighboring areas to set an example.
Not "trying to work out terms where American self-government in internal affairs" is cemented as part of making sure both parties are living up to the obligations of the social contract.
No, why they paid less taxes was sloppy enforcement. It was never made a matter of "We agree to charge you less in taxes because British merchants get rich off of the Empire."
No, what's "fair" to me is them actually paying taxes like every other Englishman and being represented the same way every other Englishman was represented.
Whether or not the system of representation that was employed to give disproportionate allotments of representatives was fair and just, that was representation as the average Englishman enjoyed. The colonists were no more unrepresented than the Englishmen who couldn't vote and had no representative from (not for) their area.
But apparently, for the average American to not be an "elector" any more than the average Englishman isn't equality because it doesn't match up with the division of government into tyranny or full fledged liberal democracy.
I'm a John Adams fan, but I'm not going to believe that his view of the case is obviously correct just because I like him considerably more than Lord North or Chatham.
And I stand by my reason for posting what I did. Any possible solution to the troubles at work here has to acknowledge that Britain is not going to say "Okay, you can have what you want, and hopefully you won't take advantage of it." no matter how we set up Parliament, no matter how much Americans are listened to.
So any possible solution has to address those concerns.
Obviously it has to address American concerns, but no one is arguing that those should be ignored. Not even legalist-monarchists like me.
Last edited:
Which was not at all? Come on, Manchester having no representation because of ancient electoral laws was bad, adding the colonies into that just cranks up the badness. I've never understood why you always defend policies that were practically universally agreed to be bad and wrongheaded.
Also, sloppy enforcement of mercantile restrictions was very much part of the political game that earlier British ministries were playing. Enact mercantile laws, that keeps domestic manufacturers happy. Fail to devote enough funds to fully enforce them, that keeps colonial traders happy....sure, it's slimy, but it's not like it wasn't deliberate.
Interestingly enough, Chatham was an exact proponent of the sort of mercantalist-based policies you're arguing against. He was a direhard mercantalist who famously didn't want the Colonies producing one horseshoe, but by the same token considered taxing them to be unacceptable and even said that doing so had "broken the contract" Britain had with them. Burke also had the same opinion on taxes.
Last edited:
I think by 1774 the die was cast. Any intervention would have needed to be earlier, probably before or immediately after the Seven Years' War.
I have always wondered if there was any way the England could have abandoned the New England colonies to France ,(retaining the colonies from New York southward), thus landing the French with a fatally poisoned chalice. Though I do not think that abandoning Englishmen to French rule.
The taxes were brewing as early as the 1750's - if you can manage to knock off the Proclamation of 1763 and somehow abate the bitterness about taxes you can delay if not outright stop the revolution. Of course, the Americans'll want representation eventually.
Because when people claim that the Americans were being gypped of the rights of Englishmen, what rights Englishmen actually enjoyed is relevant.
If someone proposed that we reform the entire system for the sake of "Average men and women", I'd break a leg jumping on that bandwagon. But if it becomes the colonists being denied something as if it was a matter of anti-American rather than anti-common man, I will argue what I do.
And as you already know, I'm not fond of the argument that unrepresentative government is illegitimate by definition.
I will say though that the existing system was inherently messed up, though. Even if Parliament made a compromise that worked on this issue, it's not enough to solve the fact that the Americans are going to get tired of being common men in a system rigged for the squirearchy, whether their specific grievances as colonists are addressed or no.
And there, I can't blame 'em.
But that wasn't what spawned the Stamp Act or the Gaspee, so I will regard Sam Adams and the people who turned this from a question of taxation to a question of control as deserving to hung from the same branch of the same sour apple tree.
You've spent more time on British politics than I have, so I'm going to take your word for it. But the fact remains that those duties are on the books, and a vigilant and honest customs agent could still collect them.
Of course, find such a man when the position is used for purposes of patronage rather than revenue.
But that takes us back to the entrenched interests.
There's a reason I admire Burke but have turned very sour on Chatham. That is it. (underlined).
What I don't understand - or I do but find myself headdesking over - is why Parliament was so strongly in favor of maintaining its "authority" that the issues involved with that (which Burke brought up eloquently) were overlooked.
This should not have become a matter of accepting "control of all matters whatsoever", which only those who felt rebellion was worse than tyranny would defend (which is why I spend more energy on the Stamp Act than the Port Bill).
Last edited:
You should avoid using that term. It's discriminatory against Gypsies, along the lines of saying, "I got jewed."
Anaxagoras
Banned
Not quite correct. Jefferson in the Summary View said that America owed allegiance to the King but that Parliament had no authority over Americans. He compared it to the situation in Scotland between 1603 (when Scotland and England came under the rule of the same monarch) and 1707 (when the Scotland and England merged parliaments to become the Kingdom of Great Britain). In other words, Jefferson in 1774 still saw himself as a subject of King George III but felt that the only parliament which had authority over him was the Virginia House of Burgesses and that the Parliament in London had no power over him at all.
And if the British had arrested Jefferson in 1774, it honestly would not have mattered much as he was not a big player in revolutionary circles at that time. Far more likely would have been the arrests of Otis, Sam Adams, John Adams, Patrick Henry, and probably a dozen other men seen as far more important and rebellious than Jefferson. But the British had no wish to create martyrs at the time, which is why they didn't arrest all the members of the First Continental Congress.
Do you have another term in common English?
Common as opposed to archaic or otherwise obscure, I'm not picky whether it's American English (as someone who uses "arsed") or not.
Because this is the first time I've seen that mentioned. I'm not surprised it originated there, but I've never seen anyone mention that it has those connotations today.
In the context of your post, the word deprived would have worked. As an alternative to gypped, swindled, conned, cheated or scammed would work; as would lesser used words, such as, hornswaggled or bambooseled.
Screwed
Maligned
Cheated
Deprived
and with slight variation of the original sentence...
Mistreated
Discriminated
Abused
Repressed