Political Solution to the American War of Independence/Dominion Colonialism

[Perfidious Albion]

Having said that, the alliances were stacked in London's favour better before the 7YW. In the War of the Spanish succession, she had Prussia, the Netherlands, Austria and Portugal on her side. In the War of the Austrian succession, she had Portugal, the Netherlands, Austria and Russia. The 7YW had just Prussia and Portugal. By the mid 1760s, she had just Portugal.

Fair point. I'd say, though, that it was not sufficiently stacked for the outcome of the war to be inevitable, especially in the Americas. Paris has an inherent advantage over London in this respect; if there are French troops in England/Great Britain, the latter is in a terrifyingly dangerous position and pretty much has to accept French terms and to cede any gains it has made elsewhere in the world, whereas it is rather harder for France to be in a position where it has little choice but to accept English/British terms.

Also, we don't have to restrict ourselves to the 18th century. England could easily have lost its North American colonies to another European power in the mid-17th century, let alone before then; the Dutch Republic is a good candidate, as is France. The English colonial empire in North America, then, might well have been remembered like a somewhat larger version of the Swedish colonial empire in North America: an irrelevant curiosity with no great effect on world history.

 

[TFSmith121]

Yeah, but ...

Plenty of factions in various legislatures have changed things throughout history. Eurosceptics caused John Major to get a Eurozone opt-out, for instance - something with huge knock on effects to history.

Regarding your last question, the thirteen colonies already had something approximating responsible government in practice. It's called benign neglect. It was Grenville and Townhend that attempted to change that (although at least the former backed off.)

Yeah, but ... the point is there were more parliamentarians who supported a hard-nosed position than not, and not just once - time and again, London (as shorthand for the English/British political elite) displayed very little desire to share power with anyone, absent the exchange of gunfire, for most of the 1700-1800s.

Best,

 

[Timmy811]

Yeah, but ... the point is there were more parliamentarians who supported a hard-nosed position than not, and not just once - time and again, London (as shorthand for the English/British political elite) displayed very little desire to share power with anyone, absent the exchange of gunfire, for most of the 1700-1800s.

Best,

The majority favored a hard nosed position because the King did, and George III was a strong king during the early part of his reign. Without a King who favored the Tories this would not have happened.

If you're incapable of envisioning a scenario in which Fredrick inherits and Pitt the Elder holds on to power, or Chatham or Rockingham have a long premiership then you're not arguing in good faith. George I and George II both favored Whig governments for decades and Fredrick did the same. George III was an anomaly that was not inevitable.

A hundred vastly more far fetched scenarios are debated on these forums are debated every day.

 

[Viriato]

I do think once France was gone from North America, it gave the British settlers the sense that they no longer needed the mother country, simply because the British Settlers' principal threat was gone. Had Britain not sent so many troops or allocated so many funds to the North American theatre of the war, things could have gone differently. Though outnumbered 20 to 1 the French along with their various Indian allies did quite well, winning a string of victories during the Seven Years War until 1758 when large reinforcements came from Britain.

One has to remember that in 1754, there was a great deal of friction and energy wasted among the fourteen colonial governments, and they had neglected to allocate funds for defense. Most of the colonies had small provincial regiments of militias that did not train or drill regularly. Meanwhile in New France, every male habitant had to drill once per month. Also, in New France the lack of a legislature made directives from Paris or Quebec much easier to follow.

Remember that in 1754 when Washington surrendered to the French at Fort Necessity in 1754, various Indians began raiding frontier settlements of Virginia and Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, despite heavy Indian raids the General Assembly refused to allocate funds for an punitive expedition until 1756. Looking at the debates from Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, this miserly attitude seems to have been a common theme throughout the 18th century.

Even when British troops arrive, early on they were poorly led and did not perform well. The Braddock Expedition of 1755 for instance was led by Major General Edward Braddock and George Washington, and was a major setback. The French, while outnumbered 13 to 1 by the Anglo-Americans, however with their Indian allies that number was reduced, but they remained outnumbered nearly 2 to 1. Despite this, at Monongahela in 1755 the French and Indians were able to completely annihilate the Anglo-American force with only around three-quarters of the British and Provincial force being killed or wounded. Even more impressive was the battle at Fort Carillon in July 1758, the French and their Indian allies were outnumbered 5 to 1 and were able to win a decisive victory against 18,000 British led troops under General James Abercrombie.

In the end, British dominance of the seas allowed British to continuously reinforce its colonies, with additional troops. New France was cutoff from reinforcements from France, and France preferred to focus on the European theatre. Early in the war though, the French had managed to capture Minocra in 1756 from the British (a giant blow to their prestige), and in 1757 invaded Hanover and defeated them forcing the King George II's son the Duke of Cumberland to sign the Convention of Klosterzeven.

By October 1757, the Austrians had entered Berlin. Had Frederick II pulled on wrong move at Rossbach in November 1757, his army outnumbered 2 to 1 could have been defeated by the Austro-French force. Perhaps if the Russians had arrived sooner, the war in Europe would have been over by the end of 1757.

Also, after the failed British raid on Rochefort in September, the British most likely would have most likely sued for peace. Another POD could have been Holbourne's fleet at Louisbourg in September 1757. Every one of the British ships was badly damaged, whilst the French fleet remained in the safety of the harbour. Had La Motte gone after them, it could have dealt a decisive blow to the already stretched thin British forces. With 6,000 troops and 14 ships of the line.

Early on in the war the British demanded the boundary between the colonies be the Wabash River in modern Indiana and Illinois the Southern Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River (in New York). However, had the peace come in 1758, the antebellum status quo would have probably remained in place.

 

[Saphroneth]

I do think once France was gone from North America, it gave the British settlers the sense that they no longer needed the mother country, simply because the British Settlers' principal threat was gone.

There's one Kipling poem to this effect...



I
BEFORE

’TWAS not while England’s sword unsheathed
Put half a world to flight,
Nor while their new-built cities breathed
Secure behind her might;
Not while she poured from Pole to Line
Treasure and ships and men—
These worshippers at Freedom’s shrine
They did not quit her then!

Not till their foes were driven forth
By England o’er the main—
Not till the Frenchman from the North
Had gone with shattered Spain;
Not till the clean-swept oceans showed
No hostile flag unrolled,
Did they remember what they owed
To Freedom—and were bold!

II
AFTER

THE SNOW lies thick on Valley Forge,
The ice on the Delaware,
But the poor dead soldiers of King George
They neither know nor care—

Not though the earliest primrose break
On the sunny side of the lane,
And scuffling rookeries awake
Their England’s spring again.

They will not stir when the drifts are gone
Or the ice melts out of the bay:
And the men that served with Washington
Lie all as still as they.

They will not stir though the mayflower blows
In the moist dark woods of pine,
And every rock-strewn pasture shows
Mullein and columbine.

Each for his land, in a fair fight,
Encountered, strove, and died,
And the kindly earth that knows no spite
Covers them side by side.

She is too busy to think of war;
She has all the world to make gay;
And, behold, the yearly flowers are,
Where they were in our fathers’ day!

Golden-rod by the pasture-wall
When the columbine is dead,
And sumach leaves that turn, in fall,
Bright as the blood they shed.

 

[usertron2020]

AND YET IN ACTUAL HISTORY - <snip>
But no, that will be resolved by handwaving a parliamentary election ... or two.

Best,

IMO the problem wasn't in Westminster, it was in Windsor. The German-descended Mad King George III trying to prove his Supreme Englishness, and to hell with "that horrid little electorate" [1] and "ungrateful Colonials".

1] Hanover

William Pitt the Elder never got into power? [2]

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? [3]

2] Good point

3] Then George III would be George IV. He'd be a very different man. His preference for North wasn't because he made a better card-playing partner, it was because they saw eye to eye, to the point where he refused to accept North's resignation long after any responsible monarch would have done so.

OTOH, if George's madness had struck harder and at a younger age, leaving the country with a regency for the young Prince of Wales, that opens up all kinds of possibilities.

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.

American representation in the House of Commons was never in the cards. Writings and quoted speeches of the time show quite clearly that educated men could well see how that would end: A fully settled British North America politically and culturally overwhelming Mother England.

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".

Despite claims of "benign neglect" there had always been major control over the Colonies, especially with the strangulating effects of the mercantilist system. Imagine a region as vast as the colonies without a single legal operating forge! And this was a principle on which Pitt the Elder was ferociously IN FAVOR of! He himself swore he would never see one forge in America

I'm starting to think the correct term for you is "manifest destiny".

I strongly suggest you use another term. That term conjures images of the Trail of Tears, Sand Creek, Wounded Knee, and countless others.

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.

Not without Change & Reform (two incredibly ugly words in a government with a Civil Service already some four hundred years old) coming out of London immediately after the end of the 7YW. Maybe if the war hadn't ended so spectacularly for the British, thereby NOT reinforcing the entrenched ruling classes' sense of power?

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).

Not at all, though the British Army's leadership in the ARW was pretty lamentable in terms of grand strategy. And they had a horrible leadership back home to boot. Maybe if the capable Earl of Sandwich had had an interest in the army rather than the navy in his life?

3) You are of the opinion that no European power can defeat the United States. (Specifically, since 1775.)

The argument is often about who would want to (if anyone), who would back the United States (if anyone). I would think that had NO ONE, not even private individuals ($$$), come to the aid of the Colonies in the ARW, the British would have completely ground down America eventually. But short of individual states surrendering, it might well have taken until the chronological time of Yorktown to overrun every part of the country. Which, BTW, was General Sir Henry Clinton's belief in being the only way to conquer the country.

So, if Louis XVI been a strong super-reactionary in the sense of never doing anything to support a foreign revolt, never mind a rebellion or revolution within the British Empire, [4] Britain conquering the US in this scenario is quite doable.

4] Would be most un-French of him, that

4) You hold that the US was fated to become a super power since the 1840s.

Meh, not really. Too much would depend on the outcome of the American Civil War, which though likely a Union victory there's no absolute guarantee that it won't turn into a corrupt super-capitalist dystopia. That pathway leads to Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina.

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.

OK, you've made a lot of good points, but now you're just being silly. Ha-ha.

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 [5] in a spectacularly one sided war.

5] It WAS a very dirty war, but except for coastal Southern California, the South-Southeastern third of Texas, and a few missions in present day New Mexico and Arizona, that land had only Native-Americans, who were bound to be screwed either way.

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 [6]).

6] At the time of my education, it was never made clear to me that closing the port of Boston meant putting the city under siege! Because for all practical purposes the city is an island, with only a narrow unroaded spit of land connecting Boston to the mainland. It did NOT have the geography of London.

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

If only it weren't for the King's Friends and their master

I would also add ending mercantilism, of which the Colonies had completely outgrown. Unfortunately British merchants, and their servants in Parliament, certainly hadn't. Hence, this reform would never get passed, and would wreck the rest.

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

Revolutionary fear may have existed post-1763, but it was mostly ephemeral until actions in London had begun to unite the Colonies as they had never been before. The American Revolution was more one of separation than politics, as people kept expecting at the time for George Washington to go Oliver Cromwell, thereby negating the promises of the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. The "American experiment" was seen as doomed to fail.

It was indeed 1789 when true fears of revolution began, but I would posit IMO that such "revolutionary" talk died when Napoleon crowned himself Emperor in 1803.

Almost anything is possible...

Many fewer are probable.

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...[7]

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. [8]

Best,

7] Meh, there are no absolutes.

8] Good point

Yet you simply must admit that Great Men have arrived in history at propitious times in history. Look at the performance of armies under poor commanders that are replaced by great ones, and vice-versa. Times in history where great leaders fail to appear, and where they do appear.

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

Shame But I prefer an open dialogue myself, rather than groupthink.

At risk of entering a debate which I have very little desire to enter… I'd just like to make a little nitpick.<snip>As for the actual subject of the thread (as opposed to a nitpick), I shall steer quite clear of that!

Your first White Feather is on the way...

 

[Saphroneth]

IMO the problem wasn't in Westminster, it was in Windsor. The German-descended Mad King George III trying to prove his Supreme Englishness, and to hell with "that horrid little electorate" [1] and "ungrateful Colonials".

1] Hanover



2] Good point

3] Then George III would be George IV. He'd be a very different man. His preference for North wasn't because he made a better card-playing partner, it was because they saw eye to eye, to the point where he refused to accept North's resignation long after any responsible monarch would have done so.

OTOH, if George's madness had struck harder and at a younger age, leaving the country with a regency for the young Prince of Wales, that opens up all kinds of possibilities.



American representation in the House of Commons was never in the cards. Writings and quoted speeches of the time show quite clearly that educated men could well see how that would end: A fully settled British North America politically and culturally overwhelming Mother England.



Despite claims of "benign neglect" there had always been major control over the Colonies, especially with the strangulating effects of the mercantilist system. Imagine a region as vast as the colonies without a single legal operating forge! And this was a principle on which Pitt the Elder was ferociously IN FAVOR of! He himself swore he would never see one forge in America



I strongly suggest you use another term. That term conjures images of the Trail of Tears, Sand Creek, Wounded Knee, and countless others.



Not without Change & Reform (two incredibly ugly words in a government with a Civil Service already some four hundred years old) coming out of London immediately after the end of the 7YW. Maybe if the war hadn't ended so spectacularly for the British, thereby NOT reinforcing the entrenched ruling classes' sense of power?



Not at all, though the British Army's leadership in the ARW was pretty lamentable in terms of grand strategy. And they had a horrible leadership back home to boot. Maybe if the capable Earl of Sandwich had had an interest in the army rather than the navy in his life?



The argument is often about who would want to (if anyone), who would back the United States (if anyone). I would think that had NO ONE, not even private individuals ($$$), come to the aid of the Colonies in the ARW, the British would have completely ground down America eventually. But short of individual states surrendering, it might well have taken until the chronological time of Yorktown to overrun every part of the country. Which, BTW, was General Sir Henry Clinton's belief in being the only way to conquer the country.

So, if Louis XVI been a strong super-reactionary in the sense of never doing anything to support a foreign revolt, never mind a rebellion or revolution within the British Empire, [4] Britain conquering the US in this scenario is quite doable.

4] Would be most un-French of him, that



Meh, not really. Too much would depend on the outcome of the American Civil War, which though likely a Union victory there's no absolute guarantee that it won't turn into a corrupt super-capitalist dystopia. That pathway leads to Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina.



OK, you've made a lot of good points, but now you're just being silly. Ha-ha.



5] It WAS a very dirty war, but except for coastal Southern California, the South-Southeastern third of Texas, and a few missions in present day New Mexico and Arizona, that land had only Native-Americans, who were bound to be screwed either way.



6] At the time of my education, it was never made clear to me that closing the port of Boston meant putting the city under siege! Because for all practical purposes the city is an island, with only a narrow unroaded spit of land connecting Boston to the mainland. It did NOT have the geography of London.



If only it weren't for the King's Friends and their master

I would also add ending mercantilism, of which the Colonies had completely outgrown. Unfortunately British merchants, and their servants in Parliament, certainly hadn't. Hence, this reform would never get passed, and would wreck the rest.



Revolutionary fear may have existed post-1763, but it was mostly ephemeral until actions in London had begun to unite the Colonies as they had never been before. The American Revolution was more one of separation than politics, as people kept expecting at the time for George Washington to go Oliver Cromwell, thereby negating the promises of the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. The "American experiment" was seen as doomed to fail.

It was indeed 1789 when true fears of revolution began, but I would posit IMO that such "revolutionary" talk died when Napoleon crowned himself Emperor in 1803.



7] Meh, there are no absolutes.

8] Good point

Yet you simply must admit that Great Men have arrived in history at propitious times in history. Look at the performance of armies under poor commanders that are replaced by great ones, and vice-versa. Times in history where great leaders fail to appear, and where they do appear.



Shame But I prefer an open dialogue myself, rather than groupthink.



Your first White Feather is on the way...

Usertron, I didn't mean you with the "Manifest Destiny" accusations. I meant TFSmith - who HAS said the things I credit him with.
You're much more sensible.

 

[usertron2020]

Usertron, I didn't mean you with the "Manifest Destiny" accusations. I meant TFSmith - who HAS said the things I credit him with.
You're much more sensible.

I knew that, I was trying to give you a somewhat more balanced American POV. What do you think of what I have posted? I like Britons (this is the part where you tell me you're from New Zealand) who are educated without overbearing opinions regarding the Land Across the Pond.

 

[Saphroneth]

I knew that, I was trying to give you a somewhat more balanced American POV. What do you think of what I have posted? I like Britons (this is the part where you tell me you're from New Zealand) who are educated without overbearing opinions regarding the Land Across the Pond.

The way I tend to think, in terms of the US, is:

1) Some kind of revolution in the colonies is likely. All the OTL colonies is not guaranteed; nor is it guaranteed that it will succeed. It is possible for a New England revolt to take place but be put down, or resolved amicably; it is also possible that the colonies will form multiple states, et cetera.
2) The US was relatively weak compared to the British Empire in the 1810s and as such a war then could potentially go either way so long as the UK was distracted. (As OTL, the War of 1812 - could have been more one way or the other.)
3) The Mexican-American war was just cruelly one-sided. That's got a lot of butterfly potential, especially if Santa Anna isn't in charge!
4) The US was relatively strong compared to the Brits in the 1860s (in so far as a land war goes), and as such it would take the US being distracted for a war to go the way of the Brits - otherwise, about the best the Brits could hope for is a stalemate. OTL, there was quite a considerable distraction in the form of disunity in the US which led to attempted secession. Here "go the way of the Brits" means any sort of concessions whatsoever past status quo ante - my guess is that as far as it would really go would be a "standard issue islands-for-cash peace deal" with minor border adjustments. (We can do you a good deal for the Falklands? )
5) Past that point, or absent the US being disunited, it's basically "Can the Brits make enough trouble that they get Canada back in the peace deal?"
6) As some indeterminate point, the US reaches the point it can challenge the RN on the high seas, at which point things get very dicey indeed for the Brits getting any successes worthy of note. (Unless the US attempts a genuine post-1900 transatlantic invasion, which is so damn hard that it alters things again.)
7) Fortunately for just about everyone, the last war the US fought with the UK was in 1812-15. All else is the preserve of AH.
8) As all-powerful hegemonic empires de facto ruling half the world go, the US isn't that bad. Still could improve, but better than a fair number of the alternatives.


And, as an aside:
9) The US was most certainly not fated to become what it is today. It is what it is due to a combination of skill and luck, not inevitability - the world is more complicated than that.
10) Stars And Stripes by Harry Harrison is dreck. So is anything with the reconquest of the US post the 1770s by the Brits - what would we do with it?

Oh, and - yes, I'm native-Brit. (Native-Englander, too, but still get really annoyed when someone uses "England" for the polity as of WW2 etc.)

 

[Socrates]

Yeah, but ... the point is there were more parliamentarians who supported a hard-nosed position than not, and not just once - time and again, London (as shorthand for the English/British political elite) displayed very little desire to share power with anyone, absent the exchange of gunfire, for most of the 1700-1800s.

Best,

With all respect, you seem to be showing a fundamental lack of knowledge of how parliament worked in this period. There were a handful of powerful factions that were capable of forming an administration, who, once in power, would control the levers of patronage and use the bulk of parliament as lobby fodder for their proposals. It was the same MPs that voted to pass the stamp act, that voted to repeal it again, and then that voted to close down the port of Boston. MPs might have strong views on things that affected their own constituency, or that affected their own financial interests, but for the most part voted the government line.

In addition, I forgot to mention in my earlier post the example of legislative independence for Grattan's parliament, smack bang in the middle of your declared 1756-1815 period. What clearer an example of giving away power is there?

 

[Viriato]

After going over some contemporary sources, from the period including parliamentary debates, magazines etc. from both England and America I was able to gather some insight into what the train of thought was around the 1760s-1770s. And these were the conclusions that I was able to draw.

1. Most people in England agreed that taxation without representation was abhorrent and that the Americans were completely within their rights as Englishmen to protest this. Though many objected to the use of violence, English opinion only seems to have become unsympathetic one the Americans entered into an alliance with the French. Yet even in 1778, in the House of Lords the Duke of Richmond defended the Americans in a debated on 7 April of that year advocated granted independence to the American colonies.

2. Many proposals regarding American (and West Indian) representation in the House of Commons were formulated throughout this period. Benjamin Franklin was an advocate of this early on. The primary objections seem to be because of physical distance between the colonies and London. For instance, parliament could be dissolved and a new election would be called and it would be weeks before the American constituents would even be aware of this. Also, as London was quite expensive to live in, along with travel to London, and MPs were unpaid, there was a proposal for the crown to offer them salaries. This however was shelved as it was feared that they would become corrupt agents of the crown.

3. Americans for the most part were wiling to concede that Parliament alone enjoyed the general power as superintendent of the Empire, that is the power to mediate imperial disputes, trade and foreign affairs. American Whigs agreed that "trade and general superintendence (defence)" were the responsibilities of Parliament, however "internal policing" belonged exclusively to the regional (colonial) legislatures. By 1778, Parliament had renounced the authority to tax and administrate the colonies and had given into most of the American demands, however by that time the French had begun backing the rebellion. The bill introduced by Henry Seymour Conway in the Commons in 1774 reaffirmed this and sought to define what powers belong to the Crown, Parliament, and the Colonial Legislatures.

4. The Americans had many supporters in both the House of Lords and the Commons, obviously among the Whig Party. These include the Duke of Richmond, Earl of Chantham, Earl of Camden, Earl of Effingham in the House of Lords. In addition to John Wilkes, Edmund Burke, John Glynn, all in the House of Commons. The British Whigs were generally wary of crown authority and they encouraged American defiance of royal governors. They saw this as an extension of traditional Whig resistance to royal authority in England itself.

5. Whigs on both sides of the pond argued that sovereignty rested upon the constitutional laws of England, not necessarily in Parliament. Consent they argued was essential so that "no law shall be binding without the consent of the proprietors (landowners) of England. This paved the way for the Americans to establish their own version of Parliament.

6. Had France not intervened on behalf of the Americans, a political solution would have been possible, as the Americans would have had little alternative. By 1777 the Americans were running desperately low on gunpowder (France provided over 90% of the gunpowder during the revolution). There was only a single gunpowder mill in America at Frankford Mill in Pennsylvania. To make gunpowder, saltpeter would be needed and high quality saltpeter came from India. In 1777, France began to provide desperately need aid in the form of hundreds of cannons, thousands of boots and uniforms and large quantities of gunpowder and muskets. Louis XVI was initially skeptical of providing aid to the Americans, but Vergennes encouraged it, had Louis XVI refused, the Peace Commission of 1778 might have signaled the end of the rebellion.

7. It is often forgotten that in 1782 Britain granted the Irish Parliament the exclusive right to legislate on matters concerning Ireland, in addition to granting Ireland its own independent courts. Granted Catholics were excluded from this, but this would not be a problem in America (with the exception of Quebec and Maryland). I see no reason as to why parliament would have objected to this in America. Though I envision Bermuda and the West Indies being included in any such scheme, as at this time the whites in Jamaica were unhappy with their royal governor.

 

[Legend-in-Exile]

After going over some contemporary sources, from the period including parliamentary debates, magazines etc. from both England and America I was able to gather some insight into what the train of thought was around the 1760s-1770s. And these were the conclusions that I was able to draw.

.

Very interesting, where did you find the sources btw?

The situation was plainly not as clear cut, on either side, as some would like to believe.

 

[Viriato]

Very interesting, where did you find the sources btw?

The situation was plainly not as clear cut, on either side, as some would like to believe.

"The Parliamentary Register" with House of Commons and House of Lords debates.

"Journals of the House of Lords"

"Journals of Congress" (January 1, 1776 to January 1, 1777)

"The Political Register, and Impartial Review of New Books"

"Reflexions on Representation in Parliament" 1766

Issues of "The London Magazine, or Gentleman's Monthly Intelligencer"

"The Monthly Review, Or Literary Journal"

"The Scots Magazine"

"Journal of the proceedings of the congress" (Continental Congress)

 

[Legend-in-Exile]

"The Parliamentary Register" with House of Commons and House of Lords debates.

"Journals of the House of Lords"

"Journals of Congress" (January 1, 1776 to January 1, 1777)

"The Political Register, and Impartial Review of New Books"

"Reflexions on Representation in Parliament" 1766

Issues of "The London Magazine, or Gentleman's Monthly Intelligencer"

"The Monthly Review, Or Literary Journal"

"The Scots Magazine"

"Journal of the proceedings of the congress" (Continental Congress)

Thanks, might have been lazy to ask (as opposed to searching myself), but appreciate the list

 

[Socrates]

After going over some contemporary sources, from the period including parliamentary debates, magazines etc. from both England and America I was able to gather some insight into what the train of thought was around the 1760s-1770s. And these were the conclusions that I was able to draw.

1. Most people in England agreed that taxation without representation was abhorrent and that the Americans were completely within their rights as Englishmen to protest this. Though many objected to the use of violence, English opinion only seems to have become unsympathetic one the Americans entered into an alliance with the French. Yet even in 1778, in the House of Lords the Duke of Richmond defended the Americans in a debated on 7 April of that year advocated granted independence to the American colonies.

2. Many proposals regarding American (and West Indian) representation in the House of Commons were formulated throughout this period. Benjamin Franklin was an advocate of this early on. The primary objections seem to be because of physical distance between the colonies and London. For instance, parliament could be dissolved and a new election would be called and it would be weeks before the American constituents would even be aware of this. Also, as London was quite expensive to live in, along with travel to London, and MPs were unpaid, there was a proposal for the crown to offer them salaries. This however was shelved as it was feared that they would become corrupt agents of the crown.

3. Americans for the most part were wiling to concede that Parliament alone enjoyed the general power as superintendent of the Empire, that is the power to mediate imperial disputes, trade and foreign affairs. American Whigs agreed that "trade and general superintendence (defence)" were the responsibilities of Parliament, however "internal policing" belonged exclusively to the regional (colonial) legislatures. By 1778, Parliament had renounced the authority to tax and administrate the colonies and had given into most of the American demands, however by that time the French had begun backing the rebellion. The bill introduced by Henry Seymour Conway in the Commons in 1774 reaffirmed this and sought to define what powers belong to the Crown, Parliament, and the Colonial Legislatures.

4. The Americans had many supporters in both the House of Lords and the Commons, obviously among the Whig Party. These include the Duke of Richmond, Earl of Chantham, Earl of Camden, Earl of Effingham in the House of Lords. In addition to John Wilkes, Edmund Burke, John Glynn, all in the House of Commons. The British Whigs were generally wary of crown authority and they encouraged American defiance of royal governors. They saw this as an extension of traditional Whig resistance to royal authority in England itself.

5. Whigs on both sides of the pond argued that sovereignty rested upon the constitutional laws of England, not necessarily in Parliament. Consent they argued was essential so that "no law shall be binding without the consent of the proprietors (landowners) of England. This paved the way for the Americans to establish their own version of Parliament.

6. Had France not intervened on behalf of the Americans, a political solution would have been possible, as the Americans would have had little alternative. By 1777 the Americans were running desperately low on gunpowder (France provided over 90% of the gunpowder during the revolution). There was only a single gunpowder mill in America at Frankford Mill in Pennsylvania. To make gunpowder, saltpeter would be needed and high quality saltpeter came from India. In 1777, France began to provide desperately need aid in the form of hundreds of cannons, thousands of boots and uniforms and large quantities of gunpowder and muskets. Louis XVI was initially skeptical of providing aid to the Americans, but Vergennes encouraged it, had Louis XVI refused, the Peace Commission of 1778 might have signaled the end of the rebellion.

7. It is often forgotten that in 1782 Britain granted the Irish Parliament the exclusive right to legislate on matters concerning Ireland, in addition to granting Ireland its own independent courts. Granted Catholics were excluded from this, but this would not be a problem in America (with the exception of Quebec and Maryland). I see no reason as to why parliament would have objected to this in America. Though I envision Bermuda and the West Indies being included in any such scheme, as at this time the whites in Jamaica were unhappy with their royal governor.

Thank you for this. It pretty much confirms all the arguments I have been making, and more besides.

 

[GdwnsnHo]

*applause* I'm grateful for all the responses!

So - from the analysis of what has been said - it looks like the most likely PoD would be to have some sort of push towards a Whig Parliament, or specifically a Decentralisation/Representation-Friendly Whig Faction - be it by a different King - or potentially a crisis in France to prevent their interference is Anglo-American affairs.

So on the assumptions of the following (as it does seem to be plausible based on the evidence and arguments provided) I have come up with a basic idea for the rules - and any contributions (be they to expand or limit the powers) would be appreciated.

Bill to Establish the British Parliament of New England

1) By Proclamation .... All territory east of the Proclamation line of 1763, the Apalachicola and Chattahoochee Rivers, and the island of Bermuda is under the jurisdiction of a 'British Parliament of New England' - based in Philadelphia.

2) The division of MPs for the Parliament to be determined by representatives of governors/leaders of the Thirteen Colonies.

3) The New England Parliament is beholden to the Westminster Parliament in affairs regarding defence, foreign affairs and trade. Westminster has primacy in such affairs.

4) Bermuda, whilst granted political representation in the New England Parliament, will be primarily governed by the Royal Governor of Bermuda.

5) Philadelphia is beholden to provide military forces as determined by Westminster, to be commanded as part of the British Army, it is also beholden to provide tax revenues as determined by Westminster.

6) All subjects settling beyond the frontiers of the Philadelphia Parliament forfeit their suffrage, rights and protections, and return to Westminster sovereignty.

This would be followed by a bill determining the forces required by Westminster from Philadelphia, a bill to establish a significant naval base in Bermuda (i.e. the Stick to Philadelphia's Carrot), and a bill determining tax revenues (at least equal to the costs of the forces provided by Philadelphia).

Note : I justify Philadelphia, because AFAIK it was emerging as the natural capital of the US. I'd assume that Philadelphia and Parliament of New England would interchangeable as terms.

So again - peoples thoughts?

 

[Viriato]

The most likely form of government would have been some sort of loose confederation to deal with inter-colonial affairs. The most likely solution would have been a modified version of the Galloway Plan proposed in 1774 by Joseph Galloway, a representative from Pennsylvania at the Continental Congress. The congress only rejected his plan by one vote, so it's not out of the realm of possibility.

The only thing I believe is that the title of Governor-General would have been used rather than President-General as the former had already been mentioned in British papers of the period. The Grand Council would simply be a legislative body consisting of representatives elected by the respective provincial (colonial) legislatures.

Essentially, each of the colonies would retain their individual legislatures, laws and customs. These would be the principal tools of legislation in America. Meanwhile royal governors would simply act as representatives of the crown, a position largely whittled down to that of figurehead with a few reserve powers.

Below are some sections from the Galloway Plan:

"That a British and American legislature, for regulating the administration of the general affairs of America, be proposed and established in America, including all the said colonies; within and under which government each colony shall retain its present constitution and powers of regulating and governing its own internal police, in all cases whatever."

"That the said government be administered by a president general, to be appointed by the King, and a Grand Council, to be chosen by the representatives of the people of the several colonies, in their respective assemblies, once in every three years."

"That there shall be a new election of members for the Grand Council every three years; and on the death, removal, or resignation of any member, his place shall be supplied by a new choice at the next sitting of assembly of the colony he represented."

"That the Grand Council shall meet once in every year if they shall think it necessary, and oftener if occasions shall require, at such time and place as they shall adjourn to at the last preceding meeting, or as they shall be called to meet at by the president general on any emergency."

"That the president general shall hold his office during the pleasure of the King and his assent shall be requisite to all acts of the Grand Council, and it shall be his office and duty to cause them to be carried into execution."

"That the president general, by and with the advice and consent of the Grand Council, hold and exercise all the legislative rights, powers, and authorities necessary for regulating and administering all the general police and affairs of the colonies in which Great Britain and the colonies, or any of them, the colonies in general, or more than one colony, are in any manner concerned, as well civil and criminal as commercial."

"That the said president general and the Grand Council be an inferior and distinct branch of the British legislature, united and incorporated with it for the aforesaid general purposes; and that any of the said general regulations may originate and be formed and digested, either in the Parliament of Great Britain or in the said Grand Council, and being prepared, transmitted to the other for their approbation or dissent; and that the assent of both shall be requisite to the validity of all such general acts and statutes."

"That in time of war, all bills for granting aid to the Crown, prepared by the Grand Council and approved by the president general, shall be valid and passed into a law, without the assent of the British Parliament."

 

[TFSmith121]

So the POD(s) are:

The majority favored a hard nosed position because the King did, and George III was a strong king during the early part of his reign. Without a King who favored the Tories this would not have happened.

If you're incapable of envisioning a scenario in which Fredrick inherits and Pitt the Elder holds on to power, or Chatham or Rockingham have a long premiership then you're not arguing in good faith. George I and George II both favored Whig governments for decades and Fredrick did the same. George III was an anomaly that was not inevitable.

A hundred vastly more far fetched scenarios are debated on these forums are debated every day.

Doesn't mean they are any more probable, however...

So the POD(s) are:

a) Someone other than George III is the monarch;
b) Multiple British parliamentarians make decisions other than what they did historically;
c) Various wealthy merchantile interests in England decide that sharing political power with yokels 3,000 miles away is acceptable;
d) Various and sundry fire-eaters in North America AND Europe decide NOT to take advantage of the collapse of French power in the Western Hemisphere;
e) etc etc to the nth degree.
f) PROFIT! (i.e., huzzah! Rule Britannia! etc etc.)

Which, by the way, predates the first grudging acceptance by the British of significant local government by consent in BNA by what, roughly six decades?

Okay - yep, that works.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

No, but there are likely, probable, possible, and have another cold one...

7] Meh, there are no absolutes.

8] Good point

Yet you simply must admit that Great Men have arrived in history at propitious times in history. Look at the performance of armies under poor commanders that are replaced by great ones, and vice-versa. Times in history where great leaders fail to appear, and where they do appear.

No, but there are likely, probable, possible, and have another cold one...

The thing about great men, however, is they arise when the society around them is ready for them ... and, in fact, they are "great" because of the priorities of that same society.

Otherwise, Boulanger would have been emperor of the French.

Or Charles de Gaulle.

Not to be cynical, but there's an awful lot of nationalistic (and other) "measurements" wrapped up in "Great Men" (rarely, if ever, do we hear of "Great Women" ... hum ... wonder what THAT signifies?)...

Me, I'll bet on geography and demographics every time.

Call me a cynic and realist, but good weather and ample water results in manpower; couple that with a society that values education and merit, and add in the home field advantage ... and that equation will pretty much always will beat Gott Mit Uns/bushido/esprit/moonlight and magnolias/the new Soviet Man/"frightfulness"/elan/the regiment, sir!/or whatever half-baked mysticism is being pushed to try and make up for the shortfall in manpower and firepower...

God made some men big, and some men small, but Sam Colt made them all equal, so to speak...

Some of our fellow barflies will never get that, but anyone who has seen the elephant damn well knows it.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

"America" or "North America" rather than "New England" I'd expect;

*applause* I'm grateful for all the responses!

So - from the analysis of what has been said - it looks like the most likely PoD would be to have some sort of push towards a Whig Parliament, or specifically a Decentralisation/Representation-Friendly Whig Faction - be it by a different King - or potentially a crisis in France to prevent their interference is Anglo-American affairs.

So on the assumptions of the following (as it does seem to be plausible based on the evidence and arguments provided) I have come up with a basic idea for the rules - and any contributions (be they to expand or limit the powers) would be appreciated.

Bill to Establish the British Parliament of New England

1) By Proclamation .... All territory east of the Proclamation line of 1763, the Apalachicola and Chattahoochee Rivers, and the island of Bermuda is under the jurisdiction of a 'British Parliament of New England' - based in Philadelphia.

2) The division of MPs for the Parliament to be determined by representatives of governors/leaders of the Thirteen Colonies.

3) The New England Parliament is beholden to the Westminster Parliament in affairs regarding defence, foreign affairs and trade. Westminster has primacy in such affairs.

4) Bermuda, whilst granted political representation in the New England Parliament, will be primarily governed by the Royal Governor of Bermuda.

5) Philadelphia is beholden to provide military forces as determined by Westminster, to be commanded as part of the British Army, it is also beholden to provide tax revenues as determined by Westminster.

6) All subjects settling beyond the frontiers of the Philadelphia Parliament forfeit their suffrage, rights and protections, and return to Westminster sovereignty.

This would be followed by a bill determining the forces required by Westminster from Philadelphia, a bill to establish a significant naval base in Bermuda (i.e. the Stick to Philadelphia's Carrot), and a bill determining tax revenues (at least equal to the costs of the forces provided by Philadelphia).

Note : I justify Philadelphia, because AFAIK it was emerging as the natural capital of the US. I'd assume that Philadelphia and Parliament of New England would interchangeable as terms.

So again - peoples thoughts?

"America" or "North America" rather than "New England" I'd expect; the later was pretty much understood in its current term as early as the Seventeenth Century.

Best,