Political Solution to the American War of Independence/Dominion Colonialism

[Timmy811]

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.)


Best,

A) is extremely probable (Fredrick died in a freak accident) and that's all you need because Fredrick will sponsor Pitt the Elder who was favorable to the Americans. Do you dispute that Pitt was by far the most powerful man in Parliament and perhaps the most powerful PM ever, until the death of George II? He would continue to do so if Fredrick inherited. If Pitt and the King wants it done it will be done.

As for D) the problem for the Americans was that Britain refused to take advantage of the collapse of French power, something Pitt would not have done. He favored using the army to crush native resistance west of the Appalachians. That would gain them favor of the elite interests of America.

The above scenario is actually more likely then what happened in real life. History turned on a cricket ball.

 

[Faeelin]

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.

This seems a bit wrong to me; the measures supporting the use of force, and, for instance, the Intolerable Acts, passed with widespread support in Parliament.

 

[TFSmith121]

And I'm accused of being a determinist...

History turned on a cricket ball.

Um.....no.

Sorry; human affairs are slightly more complex than this.

"Here lies poor Fred who was alive and is dead,
Had it been his father I had much rather,
Had it been his sister nobody would have missed her,
Had it been his brother, still better than another,
Had it been the whole generation, so much better for the nation,
But since it is Fred who was alive and is dead,
There is no more to be said!"

- William Makepeace Thackeray


Best,

 

[Viriato]

This seems a bit wrong to me; the measures supporting the use of force, and, for instance, the Intolerable Acts, passed with widespread support in Parliament.

I should have clarified what I meant, it seems they (the British public) lost sympathy when the Americans began taking up force. The magazines and pamphlets also seemed to be full of atrocities that they were committing against people loyal to the crown and against the "savages" (Indians). However, the parliamentary debates seem to indicate that certain members were still defending the colonists' actions.

The irony of the "Intolerable Acts" was that the Crown was simply trying to recoup some of the money it had expended fighting a war that the Virginia militia started when they attacked the French in 1754. The colonies consistently refused to allocate funds for their own defence, even during wartime. During the Cherokee War of 1758-1761, two Scottish regiments had to be sent to Cherokee Country in South Carolina to pacify the area.

Britain spent £161 million on the Seven Years War, causing the national debt to rise by £60 million between 1756 and 1763. All in all the North American colonies provided little material benefit for the mother country, as the Caribbean Islands were far more valuable. Yes the British traded around £3 million per year with the colonies, but after the revolutionary war Britain soon recouped its place as the United States' leading trade partner, in hindsight the British would have been better off just letting the colonies defend themselves as the French did in North America, and if they rebelled, letting them go on their own.

 

[Timmy811]

Um.....no.

Sorry; human affairs are slightly more complex than this.

"Here lies poor Fred who was alive and is dead,Had it been his father I had much rather,Had it been his sister nobody would have missed her,Had it been his brother, still better than another,Had it been the whole generation, so much better for the nation,But since it is Fred who was alive and is dead,There is no more to be said!"- William Makepeace Thackeray
Best,

No they're not, the people in charge matter. If Napoleon falls off his horse and dies in 1797, history would be vastly difference and the same can be said of Fredrick not being hit in the head by a cricket ball.

 

[Faeelin]

The irony of the "Intolerable Acts" was that the Crown was simply trying to recoup some of the money it had expended fighting a war that the Virginia militia started when they attacked the French in 1754. The colonies consistently refused to allocate funds for their own defence, even during wartime. During the Cherokee War of 1758-1761, two Scottish regiments had to be sent to Cherokee Country in South Carolina to pacify the area.

This is pretty unfair. The colonists spent a lot of money as well, and they had raised taxes to pay for the war. And to say the 7 Years War started because of the colonies is also pretty inaccurate; Washington did not stumble into Silesia! British colonists were laso aware of their role overseas; such as the capture of Louisbourg (traded back to France in return for their evacuation of the Low Countries), or the dispatch of New England troops to South America.

 

[TFSmith121]

The "people in charge" matter, but their decisions are bounded by

No they're not, the people in charge matter. If Napoleon falls off his horse and dies in 1797, history would be vastly difference and the same can be said of Fredrick not being hit in the head by a cricket ball.

The "people in charge" (whether overt or acknowledged as such) matter, but their options are bounded by the trends and currents in the societies that bring them to the forefront...

There is this concept called social history, you know?

Best,

 

[Viriato]

This is pretty unfair. The colonists spent a lot of money as well, and they had raised taxes to pay for the war. And to say the 7 Years War started because of the colonies is also pretty inaccurate; Washington did not stumble into Silesia! British colonists were laso aware of their role overseas; such as the capture of Louisbourg (traded back to France in return for their evacuation of the Low Countries), or the dispatch of New England troops to South America.

The war in America began on 28 May 1754 when the Virginia militia under Lieutenant Colonel George Washington ambushed 35 French soldiers in what is today Pennsylvania.

The war in Europe only began in Europe in August 1756 when Prussia invaded Saxony. The battle over Silesia was the during the War of Austrian Succession, perhaps you're getting the wars confused.

As for military funding, let us look at Virginia where 55% of the military budget was allocated to militias used mainly to provide internal security (mostly against slave uprisings) as the House of Burgesses was controlled by the wealthy planter families of the Tidewater and they cared little about the frontier.

In addition, the British government paid handsome subsidies throughout the war to the various colonies to alleviate their budget shortfalls. In 1755 these amounted to £165,000. By 1758, Pitt's budget included £200,000 for "Compensation to the Provinces of North America" for Expenses incurred by them in levying, clothing, and Pay of Troops raised there. The following the subsidy remained the same. By 1761 it was £133,333, and the same in 1762. Massachusetts' had a debt of £490,000 in 1762, and the British government liquidated this through subsidies.

All of this wartime spending created a boom in the British North American colonies, because colonial producers worked in supplying the large British army with provisions, shipping etc. When the war ended, this was followed by a depression lasting until around 1766.

What the colonies did spend was meagre by comparison, and most of that was reimbursed. As historian William R. Nester in his book "The First Global War: Britain, France and the Fate of North America, 1756-1775" pointed out

"the colonial assemblies were niggardly in their appropriations when the war broke out, they further tightened their purse-strings thereafter."

 

[TFSmith121]

Pepperell, Bill Pepperell ... damn glad to meet you.

This is pretty unfair. The colonists spent a lot of money as well, and they had raised taxes to pay for the war. And to say the 7 Years War started because of the colonies is also pretty inaccurate; Washington did not stumble into Silesia! British colonists were laso aware of their role overseas; such as the capture of Louisbourg (traded back to France in return for their evacuation of the Low Countries), or the dispatch of New England troops to South America.

Pepperell, Bill Pepperell, born and raised in Kittery, colonel of His Majesty's Army and baronet ... damn glad to meet you.

There's this guy, as well:

Shush, one can not let the narrative be disturbed! Ungrateful yankee yokels!

Best,

 

[Viriato]

I certainly wouldn't call them ungrateful nor yokels. Like the majority of people throughout history they were acting in their own self-interest. I realize that Sir William Pepperell is mentioned, keep in mind that the Province of Massachusetts was reimbursed by the British Government with £138,649 in 1749. This allowed the colony to stop printing paper currency and essentially pay off it's debt.

 

[TFSmith121]

My point is, like those who take up arms throughout history,

My point is, like those who take up arms throughout history, there was presumably a quid expected for the quo...

Americans of African ancestry expected it in 1865, women expected it in 1919, not surprisingly, the "Americans" expected something for dealing with the realities of the Anglo-French (Franco-British) confrontation in North America on the frontier for the previous century or so, and after the French surrender, one might have expected something more than the Quebec Act...

The Americans would have - probably - happily accepted the "rights of Englishmen" as late as 1775, but the British/English/London/etc - for their own self-interest, of course - didn't really see that as the right thing to do...

And, not surprisingly, spent eight years and god knows how much blood and treasure proving it.

Seems a little much butterfly all that away with "a good king."

Kings usually don't get to remain king, much less become one, by being "good"...

Best,

 

[Socrates]

My point is, like those who take up arms throughout history, there was presumably a quid expected for the quo...

Americans of African ancestry expected it in 1865, women expected it in 1919, not surprisingly, the "Americans" expected something for dealing with the realities of the Anglo-French (Franco-British) confrontation in North America on the frontier for the previous century or so, and after the French surrender, one might have expected something more than the Quebec Act...

The Americans would have - probably - happily accepted the "rights of Englishmen" as late as 1775, but the British/English/London/etc - for their own self-interest, of course - didn't really see that as the right thing to do...

And, not surprisingly, spent eight years and god knows how much blood and treasure proving it.

Seems a little much butterfly all that away with "a good king."

Kings usually don't get to remain king, much less become one, by being "good"...

Best,

Your whole argument boils down to "those bastard establishment Englishmen were all awful and would never give power away", even though there were plenty of establishment Englishmen that wanted to, and even though they did with Ireland. You then mock anyone who has provided far more detailed knowledge on the period than you as being British jingoists.

As for your last comment, you're right. They mainly get to be King by being born to a previous one. Their views don't much matter eight way.

 

[Socrates]

I should have clarified what I meant, it seems they (the British public) lost sympathy when the Americans began taking up force. The magazines and pamphlets also seemed to be full of atrocities that they were committing against people loyal to the crown and against the "savages" (Indians). However, the parliamentary debates seem to indicate that certain members were still defending the colonists' actions.

The irony of the "Intolerable Acts" was that the Crown was simply trying to recoup some of the money it had expended fighting a war that the Virginia militia started when they attacked the French in 1754. The colonies consistently refused to allocate funds for their own defence, even during wartime. During the Cherokee War of 1758-1761, two Scottish regiments had to be sent to Cherokee Country in South Carolina to pacify the area.

Britain spent £161 million on the Seven Years War, causing the national debt to rise by £60 million between 1756 and 1763. All in all the North American colonies provided little material benefit for the mother country, as the Caribbean Islands were far more valuable. Yes the British traded around £3 million per year with the colonies, but after the revolutionary war Britain soon recouped its place as the United States' leading trade partner, in hindsight the British would have been better off just letting the colonies defend themselves as the French did in North America, and if they rebelled, letting them go on their own.

For me, the Boston Tea Party is the point of no return. It was widely sympathised with in America but seen as rampant criminality and vandalism in Britain.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

The view of the American Revolutionary War presented here by several people sounds one-sided. I'll respond to Faeelin now; I may respond to others later if I have time.

This is pretty unfair. The colonists spent a lot of money as well, and they had raised taxes to pay for the war. And to say the 7 Years War started because of the colonies is also pretty inaccurate; Washington did not stumble into Silesia!

Is it? Frederick the Great didn't start the war; he didn't make a move until he knew Britain and France were at war. The existing war that began between Britain and France was taken advantage of by Prussia and Austria to struggle over Silesia, but it was the British colonists who started the war.

Of course one can dive head-first into determinism and say "Oh but it would have started anyway because Prussia and Austria were hostile and the colonists' expansionism was just the trigger"… but that's the sort of analysis that is almost always wrong. To give some examples, Britain and Russia were hostile for a time after the Crimean War, but didn't come to blows; Austria and Prussia were ill-disposed towards each other after the Austro-Prussian War but relations got better; Britain and France had poor relations many times after the fall of Napoleon (including a naval arms race exceptionally similar to the Anglo-German one which some people use to say that an Anglo-German war was inevitable) and yet they didn't go to war; the USSR and the United States were hostile and yet they didn't go to war either; the USA and the British Empire had diplomatic clashes around the turn of the century and before then, with Alabama and suchlike, and they didn't go to war either. Austro-Prussian and Anglo-French hostility made war merely possible, not certain, and there's pretty much always hostility between someone or other; it was the Americans who turned war from "could have happened" (which it almost always is) to "happening".

British colonists were laso aware of their role overseas; such as the capture of Louisbourg (traded back to France in return for their evacuation of the Low Countries), or the dispatch of New England troops to South America.

Oh no, it's possible to win battles that make gains and then trade them to other powers in exchange for other concessions! I believe that's called diplomacy; it's nothing to be condemned. To use that argument to condemn the British and call for American secession from the British Empire is circular. It only works if you implicitly assume that Great Britain has no right to trade away what the Britons in North America gained militarily or to include them in its armed forces elsewhere in the world; no-one would condemn Great Britain for treating troops from Sussex in this manner. If British America was a part of Great Britain, there's nothing wrong with it; it's only something wrong if you already assume in advance that British America shouldn't be part of Great Britain, which means it can't be logically used as an argument to justify the idea that British America shouldn't be part of Great Britain. (Not that that stopped anyone at the time, of course.)

The British colonists in North America had many things that they could be praised for, but their view on foreign policy prior to their independence…? No. Just no.

I don't understand why people, including the original American "Founding Fathers" with their long list of complaints, say this sort of thing. It's not as if there's a lack of truthful, fair and logical arguments with which to condemn the British Empire, so why make up more?

 

[The Professor]

*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?

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."

Something along these lines sounds reasonably plausible to me based on the previous PODs though I'd note that it's unlikely to be titled New England if it's all then British North America.

Hmmm, possibilities on division into more than one Parliament? Sort of Greater New England and Greater Virginia?

 

[Timmy811]

My point is, like those who take up arms throughout history, there was presumably a quid expected for the quo...

Americans of African ancestry expected it in 1865, women expected it in 1919, not surprisingly, the "Americans" expected something for dealing with the realities of the Anglo-French (Franco-British) confrontation in North America on the frontier for the previous century or so, and after the French surrender, one might have expected something more than the Quebec Act...

The Americans would have - probably - happily accepted the "rights of Englishmen" as late as 1775, but the British/English/London/etc - for their own self-interest, of course - didn't really see that as the right thing to do...

And, not surprisingly, spent eight years and god knows how much blood and treasure proving it.

Seems a little much butterfly all that away with "a good king."

Kings usually don't get to remain king, much less become one, by being "good"...

Best,

By being good? What the hell are you talking about? They get to be king by being born to one. George II reigned 33 years while following Whig foreign policies. How could Fredrick staying the course followed by his father and grandfather be simplistically labeled "being good"?

It was his son that deviated from British orthodoxy and suffered for it, in affairs both foreign and domestic.

 

[GdwnsnHo]

Something along these lines sounds reasonably plausible to me based on the previous PODs though I'd note that it's unlikely to be titled New England if it's all then British North America.

Hmmm, possibilities on division into more than one Parliament? Sort of Greater New England and Greater Virginia?

The reason I use New England, is because it isn't a new term for the colonies (preceded by the Dominion of New England) - and I'd stated not all of British N.America (I thought, I may have benefited from being more clear...).

I'd be hesitant to have one dominion for ALL of N.America, as that would slowly become a behemoth - whilst having one for New England (as defined before), one for the Mississippi Valley, etc - would prevent it becoming an Empire-Within-An-Empire.

 

[The Professor]

New England was not really applied to states below NYState; and even NY itself does not always come within the definition.

Separate Parliaments for Regions of NA seems possible but would they do so and would all the colonies in North America agree to a single confederation or many?

 

[usertron2020]

No they're not, the people in charge matter. If Napoleon falls off his horse and dies in 1797, history would be vastly difference and the same can be said of Fredrick not being hit in the head by a cricket ball.

Or Frederick the Great making good his escape as a boy from his tyrannical father, or FDR being assassinated in 1932, or Pontius Pilate taking pity on Jesus and letting him go...

For me, the Boston Tea Party is the point of no return. It was widely sympathised with in America but seen as rampant criminality and vandalism in Britain.

It was one point of no return.

The Boston Tea Party was gross vandalism, but no one was killed or even injured. Every attempt by the First and then Second Continental Congresses at striking a conciliatory and respective tone with London was cast aside by the North Government, whose policy can best be described as "Submission, nothing less".

 

[GdwnsnHo]

Ah, I did not know that about New England.

Tbh, the contemporaries would know which name to use - and I'll leave that to debate. But regarding unifying the area - whatever level of decentralisation happens within would count as domestic - and as long as it doesn't violate the rules set up for the parliament - does it matter?

It would be odd to see the MPs of Virginia having local power in Virginia, and less over the entire region, to a unitary parliamentarian - but that could well be a quirk of the region's politics - not impossible to accommodate tbh.

In addition - whilst I haven't offered it to ALL the colonies (note: I exclude a potentially conquered Quebec by using the proclamation line) There is a point where a line can and should drawn. If we say that one region is difficult to govern as it requires weeks of travel, but insist another is easy despite being the same travel-time away, then we have a disconnect in our logic.

Therefore, applying that same logic, if ATL St.Louis is going to take 5 week to get to from Philadelphia, and it is 5 weeks from Philadelphia to London - then St.Louis should be part of a seperate government (if the same logic is applied).

Personally, I chose moderately sized natural borders - and I think those work very well for an east coast based parliament.