Does a failed ARW make the British Empire smaller or larger?

[EnglishCanuck]

That's the problem. The Americans didn't like the way that the British government was treating its subjects in North America. As far as they were concerned, they were entitled to the same rights as people living in Britain, with their own representation.

Also, a lot of those grievances listed in the Declaration were directly caused by the British government: quartering soldiers, taxing without consent, suspending the legislatures of the states, not granting Americans a trial by jury, not giving the Americans any say in their own defense, and generally not giving them the autonomy that they desired. The only grievance that I think has nothing to do with the British government is the last one on the list, which accuses the King of "exciting"* attacks by Indians. That comes across as a deliberate bit of misinformation by the author, who was one of the most brilliant men of his generation and obviously knew better. But the rest of the grievances are legitimate, and were about the actions of the British King and of Parliament.

On the whole the American Colonists had very legitimate grievances (in most cases) regarding Great Britain's taxation policies, legal issues, land ownership, and economic tariffs. However, it is also important to remember that the British had a very difficult time enforcing many of the ones which would have actually economically damaged the Colonies (they had about as much power to stop all the smuggling as the French would have to walk across the Channel at the time) and were on the whole, not incredibly decisive in enforcing really any of them.

Taxation was the most egregious since it was enforceable by the British pretty easily. With all the grievances though I would say there really wasn't a need to incite armed insurrection at first.

I disagree. The Americans wanted to the rights that they felt they deserved as British subjects. When the British refused to grant them those rights, independence was a reasonable course of action. And since the British weren't going to let them become independent without a fight...

Well I quibble and say the North government (and probably George III in general) wouldn't have allowed any compromise, which means that under those circumstances a confrontation of some sort was pretty much inevitable.

The Colonists weren't friendless in Parliament, and without the clique of powerful men in the North government at this time it may* have been possible to reach a sort of accommodation. In fact the Colonists evidently thought this too in the early stages, and lacking the men in power in Britain who were in power OTL they could have succeeded in working the issue out peacefully.

*May really relates to how much power groups like The Sons of Liberty might have amassed in the short term, or if the British have taken punitive measures during this time.

Come on, don't answer a strawman with a strawman. I've never met a single American who claims that the Founders were oppressed compared to the Indians**.

*18th century way of saying "inciting"?
**Native Americans or literal Indians

Too many Americans tend to shout "OPPRESSION" at the top of their lungs as though the British were murdering Colonists in the streets at every opportunity. Rather than having economic and political disagreements with the British Parliament.

The Colonists had it good, and didn't exactly suffer under British rule. The argument that they were being 'oppressed' is just absurd.

*I think that's probably it.
** Literal Indians, the term can get a mite fuzzy when being thrown around during this period.

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

On the whole the American Colonists had very legitimate grievances (in most cases) regarding Great Britain's taxation policies, legal issues, land ownership, and economic tariffs. However, it is also important to remember that the British had a very difficult time enforcing many of the ones which would have actually economically damaged the Colonies (they had about as much power to stop all the smuggling as the French would have to walk across the Channel at the time) and were on the whole, not incredibly decisive in enforcing really any of them.

Taxation was the most egregious since it was enforceable by the British pretty easily.

Taxation was definitely the big one, but most of the grievances listed in the Declaration could have been enforced by the British government. I wouldn't be surprised if those grievances were chosen specifically because the British government had the power to change them. Jefferson was a smart guy, I'm sure he recognized which problems were actually Britain's fault.

With all the grievances though I would say there really wasn't a need to incite armed insurrection at first.

The Americans didn't incite an armed insurrection, British troops did by trying to confiscate American weapons and imprison American militia leaders at Concord. And even then, the Americans wanted to leave peacefully. The Declaration of Independence calls for an amicable separation with our "British brethren".

Well I quibble and say the North government (and probably George III in general) wouldn't have allowed any compromise, which means that under those circumstances a confrontation of some sort was pretty much inevitable.

The Americans weren't friendless in Parliament, and without the clique of powerful men in the North government at this time it may* have been possible to reach a sort of accommodation. In fact the Americans evidently thought this too in the early stages, and lacking the men in power in Britain who were in power OTL they could have succeeded in working the issue out peacefully.

Possibly. And if the British government had responded to American grievances earlier by granting them representation in Parliament or a status similar to what it would grant its dominions almost a century later, there might have not even been a Declaration of Independence in the first place.

Too many Americans tend to shout "OPPRESSION" at the top of their lungs as though the British were murdering Americans in the streets at every opportunity. Rather than having economic and political disagreements with the British Parliament.

The Americans had it good, and didn't exactly suffer under British rule. The argument that they were being 'oppressed' is just absurd.

*I think that's probably it.
** Literal Indians, the term can get a mite fuzzy when being thrown around during this period.

I think you're confusing Schoolhouse Rock with what most Americans actually believe. By "oppression" we mean that the British were taxing us and imposing laws and policies that we didn't like without our consent and without giving us any say in the matter. With the exception of a handful of misinformed people, none of us are under the illusion that the British were murdering Americans in the streets at every opportunity (although they did do it from time to time, like in Boston).

 

[Caesar Biden]

I think that's taking it a bit far. Before Saratoga, the British still had a good chance of winning the war. It was after the victory at Saratoga and the French entering the war on our side that things really started to turn against them.

Doesn't matter. Demographics are against the British, and demographics never lie.

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

Doesn't matter. Demographics are against the British, and demographics never lie.

I'm not sure I understand. Doesn't the entire history of the British Empire kind of prove that demographics are meaningless as long as you have money and weapons?

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Taxation was definitely the big one, but most of the grievances listed in the Declaration could have been enforced by the British government. I wouldn't be surprised if those grievances were chosen specifically because the British government had the power to change them. Jefferson was a smart guy, I'm sure he recognized which problems were actually Britain's fault.

He did however have an interest in exaggerating these for public consumption. Many of the Founding Fathers were guilty of it in order to whip up popular support, which is of course practical of them to do but they did exaggerate, hence the 'exciting Indian attacks' bit.

In the early stages you didn't have throngs who were ready to rebel/secede over these grievances, when the Declaration was written they needed that popular support. I don't deny the grievances were legitimate (and were Britain's fault), but many were difficult for Britain to enforce and not particularly odious or outright harmful to the colonists.

The Americans didn't incite an armed insurrection, British troops did by trying to confiscate American weapons and imprison American militia leaders at Concord. And even then, the Americans wanted to leave peacefully. The Declaration of Independence calls for an amicable separation with our "British brethren".

On that we will have to agree to disagree. Both sides are at fault in my view.

Possibly. And if the British government had responded to American grievances earlier by granting them representation in Parliament or a status similar to what it would grant its dominions almost a century later, there might have not even been a Declaration of Independence in the first place.

My thoughts precisely.

I think you're confusing Schoolhouse Rock with what most Americans actually believe. By "oppression" we mean that the British were taxing us and imposing laws and policies that we didn't like without our consent and without giving us any say in the matter. With the exception of a handful of misinformed people, none of us are under the illusion that the British were murdering Americans in the streets at every opportunity (although they did do it from time to time, like in Boston).

I get far too many people who act like what the British were doing was egregious or outright villainous. I would also not call it a mere handful considering the responses I've had and popular media portrayals of events, which inevitably bring up the Boston bit (which was entirely the mobs fault, despite what rebel propaganda would say, or modern popular history for that matter).

 

[Admiral Halsey]

Depends on what the British do after it ends really. Go the Irish route and a have really messy second revolution thanks to that and it might make it smaller as you'd probably see the other regions under Britains thumb go "Once is a fluke but twice..." Now if they end up turning the Colonies into a proto-dominion then it could easily make it larger.

 

[Socrates]

The Colonists had it good, and didn't exactly suffer under British rule. The argument that they were being 'oppressed' is just absurd.

The point wasn't that they were oppressed, but that the British were enacting acts that would cause oppression:

1. Shutting down the entire town of Boston, putting tens of thousands' economic livelihood in serious danger (which in this period, could mean starving) for the actions of a handful
2. Abolishing representative assemblies and putting colonies under complete control of another land thousand of miles away, who had already shown they will put their interests over yours elsewhere
3. Demanding that those merely accused of crimes have to take six months out from their employment (again, something that could mean impoverishment and starvation in this age) without compensation
4. Demanding that the armed forces, many of whom had a history of abusing civilians, could take over your house for lodging.

If the government closed down the commercial district of your city, scrapped Congress, forced you to travel to Alaska without compensation if you were accused of a crime, and gave the police the power to take over your house, I bet you'd think you were being oppressed.

 

[HunterX]

It depends on what sort of compromise Britain reaches with the colonies. Suppressing them by force is not a viable solution in anything but the short-term.

Depends on what the British do after it ends really. Go the Irish route and a have really messy second revolution thanks to that and it might make it smaller as you'd probably see the other regions under Britains thumb go "Once is a fluke but twice..." Now if they end up turning the Colonies into a proto-dominion then it could easily make it larger.

Ireland is a good comparison, except worse for Britain due to geography. And the fact that Britain is soon due to enter a death struggle with Revolutionary France/Napoleon.

 

[British Republic]

I can still see Britain taking Australia and perhaps New Zealand. South Africa would also be British ITTL since they will need to secure the route to India.

Thus if BNA expands to the OTL Area of Canada + USA + Northern Mexico you will have a British Empire that covers the OTL British Raj, Southern Africa, Australia NZ and a expanded BNA. Southern Africa might even be remain under Anglo control and thus following the various proposals for a Greater South Africa on this forum. Likewise I can still see a British Raj happening.

In total it works out as the following more or less:

UK: 320,000 sq km

Australia + New Zealand: 8 million sq km

British North America + British West Indies: 21.5 million

British India: 4.9 million sq km

British South Africa: 6.5 million sq km

Total: 41.3 million sq km

The total is larger than the British Empire was at its pick and even this figure does not include whatever holdings it gains in South East Asia.

 

[steve_wilson]

That's the problem. The Americans didn't like the way that the British government was treating its subjects in North America. As far as they were concerned, they were entitled to the same rights as people living in Britain, with their own representation.

People living here had representation? I quote the National Archives:

"A survey conducted in 1780 revealed that the electorate in England and Wales consisted of just 214,000 people - less than 3% of the total population of approximately 8 million. In Scotland the electorate was even smaller: in 1831 a mere 4,500 men, out of a population of more than 2.6 million"

This is why so many British supported the colonies, and the ARW is taught in our schools as having been a good thing, only schoolkids specialising in history are likely to have hear of Benedict Arnold (one American I met in 1979 thought we named schools and squares after him) and why George had to rely on Hessians.

 

[Faeelin]

The Colonists had it good, and didn't exactly suffer under British rule. The argument that they were being 'oppressed' is just absurd.

The problem with this argument, and the idea that the colonies weren't being exploited, is that it raises an obvious question: why did Britain's elite (including George III) think losing the colonies would be disastrous for them? If they were getting nothing out of it, Britain wouldn't' be affected by their loss.

 

[RodentRevolution]

The problem with this argument, and the idea that the colonies weren't being exploited, is that it raises an obvious question: why did Britain's elite (including George III) think losing the colonies would be disastrous for them? If they were getting nothing out of it, Britain wouldn't' be affected by their loss.

Not really since most humans accept than you can gain things from a relationship with other humans without oppressing them. Fair trade (and theoretically Free Trade), Responsible Government and some Marriages all strive towards that notion.

 

[TheKnightIrish]

The problem with this argument, and the idea that the colonies weren't being exploited, is that it raises an obvious question: why did Britain's elite (including George III) think losing the colonies would be disastrous for them? If they were getting nothing out of it, Britain wouldn't' be affected by their loss.

For the same reason that loosing Scotland six months ago would be disastrous. These were Britons in a British colony. This was family. When your family tells you to f-off, whether they are right or wrong, its a disaster and a poor reflection on the state of the nation and its leaders (again rightly or wrongly).

Also the Boston Tea Party and the agitation there wasn't about restricting trade or representation. It was prompted by the lowering of tax! John Hancock and other prominent smugglers of Dutch tea went ape when the East India Company monopoly tea fell in price so as to beat their smuggled tea (even after the three penny tax was subsequently imposed). It wasn't votes. Like so much of history it was the money man...

What was that old Boston lines: "Sam Adams writes the letters [to newspapers] and John Hancock pays the postage"... Hmmm. Hancock would have been done for smuggling more than once but for his excellent lawyer. One John Adams...

 

[othyrsyde]

I just had a discussion on this at another place, but if the 13 colonies stayed I don't think there would be some giant BNA/Super Canada. It would probably end up in separate dominions. However a lot of other factors need to be considered in how the events leading to the ARW are resolved before hand. or if the States ends up either losing the ARW or if it is resolved through negotiated autonomy. Then it depends on what happens in Europe, especially for France and Spain, and thus effecting their own colonies (like the Louisiana territory etc.). More or less there's no guarantee that BNA will include all the territory accumulated by Canada and the US.