Moreover the Dominion of New England was *hated* by those under its jurisdiction. There's a reason it was dismantled as soon as James left England.
Political Solution to the American War of Independence/Dominion Colonialism
- Thread starter GdwnsnHo
- Start date
Yes, but after the Boston Tea Party, I can't see the moderates being able to get into power in the UK unless the Americans hand over those responsible. Which won't happen. Lord North being enshrined in power was a recipe for disaster.
usertron2020
Donor
I hate to use a fictional example
, but I remember a mini-series many years ago showing the reaction of the news of the Boston Tea Party by the worst of the Tories being that of glee, seeing that it would (and did) keep them in power for many years (Nine!) to come.And you're right about those responsible for the Tea Party never being handed over. They were too popular. It was like Benjamin Franklin's last time in London before the ARW. By this time he had found that his own people back home had begun to lose faith in him, that he had "gone native" in England. But after his public excoriation by Solicitor General Weddeburn before the Privy Council, he found himself returning home to cheering crowds. Vox populi!
Last edited:
Faeelin
Banned
Apologies for not replying.
No, I'm not. The majority of Britain's troops during the period fought on the continent, not in North America and the Caribbean. The colonies were a sideshow for Britain.
Not sure about the #s, but I'd dispute that they didn't care about the frontier. Washington was far from the only one with extensive investments in the frontier; this is why the Proclamation of 1763 was such an issue.
Can I get a cite for this? Crucible of War discusses the burden on Massachusetts's economy from the war, and gives a similar number for the colony's debt, but only claims that part of it was paid by subsidies.
It also notes that about a quarter of the colony's military-age male population served in the war. I wonder what the relative numbers are for Britain, during this period?
No offense to Messr. Nester, but this seems anecdotal. Massachusetts spent over 250,000 pounds on the war by 1758, at a time when its annual budget was about 100,000 pounds.
I am going to insert an objection here, because I think this is a very rose-tinted view of Ireland.I agree with you that Ireland was given some modicum of self-government in 1782 (although I think the Papist Acts were more important). But these came only after the loss of North America and as part of an effort to shore up Britain's military and political position.
Actually, the Gordon Riots are an interesting counterpoint. How come London wasn't shut down until it was forced to make indemnifications for all the damage the mob caused?
That's not my point, sorry if it was unclear. My point was contrary to the view of some of the British posters, who think the Americans sat back and sucked on the King's teat, the colonies did mobilize for the war, and sent a lot of men off to fight in it, as well as raising a lot of money.
Could they have done better? Sure. So could Britain. Yet everyone focuses on the fact that the colonies didn't spend as much as they could have, and not, say, the British decision to suspend subsidies to Prussia.
I don't know. Their analysis, which was "so, if we launch a war for independence, we'll probably win and get foreign aid" was more accurate than the British view...
No, I'm not. The majority of Britain's troops during the period fought on the continent, not in North America and the Caribbean. The colonies were a sideshow for Britain.
Not sure about the #s, but I'd dispute that they didn't care about the frontier. Washington was far from the only one with extensive investments in the frontier; this is why the Proclamation of 1763 was such an issue.
Can I get a cite for this? Crucible of War discusses the burden on Massachusetts's economy from the war, and gives a similar number for the colony's debt, but only claims that part of it was paid by subsidies.
It also notes that about a quarter of the colony's military-age male population served in the war. I wonder what the relative numbers are for Britain, during this period?
No offense to Messr. Nester, but this seems anecdotal. Massachusetts spent over 250,000 pounds on the war by 1758, at a time when its annual budget was about 100,000 pounds.
I am going to insert an objection here, because I think this is a very rose-tinted view of Ireland.I agree with you that Ireland was given some modicum of self-government in 1782 (although I think the Papist Acts were more important). But these came only after the loss of North America and as part of an effort to shore up Britain's military and political position.
Actually, the Gordon Riots are an interesting counterpoint. How come London wasn't shut down until it was forced to make indemnifications for all the damage the mob caused?
That's not my point, sorry if it was unclear. My point was contrary to the view of some of the British posters, who think the Americans sat back and sucked on the King's teat, the colonies did mobilize for the war, and sent a lot of men off to fight in it, as well as raising a lot of money.
Could they have done better? Sure. So could Britain. Yet everyone focuses on the fact that the colonies didn't spend as much as they could have, and not, say, the British decision to suspend subsidies to Prussia.
I don't know. Their analysis, which was "so, if we launch a war for independence, we'll probably win and get foreign aid" was more accurate than the British view...
Faeelin
Banned
One reason I'm skeptical is that, if you look at the votes in Parliament prior to Saratoga, they are uniformly for crushing the rebellion and opposing conciliation. Soem examples:
- The wide majorities for the so-called Intolerable Acts (I can't find the numbers, other than references to majorities of 3 to 1 and 4 to 1 for the various component bills);
- Fox's vote to oppose the use of mercenaries: defeated, 242 to 88;
- A protest vote in 1777 against the King's address: defeated, 243 to 86;
The American Colonies: From Settlement to Independence by Richard C. Simmons Page 292, is where I took my figures from for the subsidies to the colonies.
As for William Nester's work being anecdotal, he is a professor at St. John's University in New York and has written several books on American history.
Faeelin
Banned
Here's a question.
By 1781, Britain was at war with the Bourbons by itself, and its old ally, the Dutch Republic. Spain, despite its antipathy to independence movements in the Americas, had joined the French. Prussia, Russia, Denmark-Norway, and Sweden had joined a League of Armed Neutrality to oppose Britain.
So, which is more plausible. Britain had some truly awful leadership during this period, who pushed things both overseas and with the colonies to the point of disaster, or the colonies were led by selfish jerks?
By 1781, Britain was at war with the Bourbons by itself, and its old ally, the Dutch Republic. Spain, despite its antipathy to independence movements in the Americas, had joined the French. Prussia, Russia, Denmark-Norway, and Sweden had joined a League of Armed Neutrality to oppose Britain.
So, which is more plausible. Britain had some truly awful leadership during this period, who pushed things both overseas and with the colonies to the point of disaster, or the colonies were led by selfish jerks?
Faeelin
Banned
Crucible of War was written by a history professor who basically specializes in the Seven Years war (with a focus on New England), so that's not enough for me to trust the anecdote over specific numbers.
As someone who majored in and has a masters in history, I prefer to look at primary sources and then draw my conclusions from there, and I most definitely do not rely on secondary works of only one person. I am familiar with Fred Anderson's work, but you should look at his peer reviews, to what other scholars think of his work. For instance Daniel J. Hulsebosch's from Saint Louis University review in the Harvard Law Journal (September, 2001) gives praise to the book but does states that it "simplifies the constitutional situation on both sides of the Atlantic." However, I will agree that Anderson's book does an excellent job of highlighting the role of the Indian nations during the war.
In the case of the North American colonies, I will have to dig in my archives, but there are primary sources from the period stating how troublesome it was to raise revenue for war. In Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin wrote letters of how much trouble he had raising funds in the Pennsylvania legislature due to the opposition of both the Penns (as proprietors) and the Quakers. When Franklin finally was able to push through a bill that allocated funds for the war, the situation had become critical as the French-backed Indians were attacking frontier settlements.
Faeelin
Banned
I'm just a simple country lawyer, so I'll make two thoughts on this: first, it's certainly true that primary sources are useful. But historians who specialize in a field and have looked at more sources tend to have a better grasp than someone who has looked at a few primary sources.
Second, primary sources, particularly ones by persons, are inherently somewhat reliable. They only give you one person's perceptions, and not a view into how the society was working. For instance, a Quaker farmer in the Delaware Valley might have written in his correspondence at the time that he was being bled dry? Did they? I don't know. But I don't think you know either, because all you're looking at is Franklin's testimony.
As another example, Frederick the Great and the Prusssians saw the Brits as allies who stabbed them in the back and left them to hang after they cut off subsidies. Does this mean that Britain was a terrible ally who didn't contribute enough to the continent?
I would also be leery of generalizing across all of the colonies, as you are. Pennsylvania and Massachusetts were different; so was Virginia.
TFSmith121
Banned
Obviously it was the Americans' faults...
Obviously, it was the Americans' faults...
Best,
Obviously, it was the Americans' faults...
Best,
For me the two aren't mutually exclusive.
Bad leadership was definitely an issue, no doubt about it. The Colonial agitators were hardly angels of reconciliation though.
Trying to say it's one or the other is a bit reductive when the actual answer appears to be that both were the case (when viewed objectively - hard as that might be to do.)
Yes, I agree, but back to the matter at hand, was a political solution viable? I believe that 1777 was the very latest that such a solution could have been achieved. Once French aid began arriving, coupled with Britain's failure to build alliances in Europe, the die was cast. Ideally a political solution should have been hammered out immediately after 1763, or before that. The wars with France had constantly proven how ineffective and inefficient it was to have several different governments, representing various interests try to provide a coordinated war policy.
When coming to my conclusions I try to look to look at various sources to come to try to find out what the people of the day thought, journals and newspapers of the period often give a good account of this. In addition, parliamentary and legislative debates do as well. Although I was born in the US and went to school here, I was able to cast aside the largely biased pro-American history that I was taught in high school once I reached university. My ancestors were not in the country yet, so I don't identify with the founding fathers, and I don't have any British connection so I tend to be neutral in my views regarding the Brits as well (perhaps if I were Irish I'd have an anti-British bias).
Back to the subject at hand, perhaps Britain's greatest mistake was to expel the French all together from North America. As long as the French remained, the colonists tended to view the British connection as a necessity. I wish I could find the quote, but one cabinet minister said something foreshadowing the independence of the colonies just after the Treaty of Paris in 1763, not that France was no longer a threat. Similarly, I feel that Canada remained loyal the British crown for so many years simply because of the perceived American threat.
usertron2020
Donor
There is Good Reason why the Americans call their leadership at that time the Founding Fathers, rather than the Gang of Greedy Idiots.
There is Good Reason why the North Government and its members (except the capable First Lord of the Admiralty, the Earl of Sandwich) are remembered as being among The. Worst. Leaders. Britain. Ever. Knew.
There is Good Reason why the Loyal Opposition in Parliament was at the same time to be considered one of the finest (if indeed not THE finest) oppositions the parliamentarian system of any country ever knew
Small wonder that these opposition leaders blazed the trail that led Britain to victory in the Napoleonic Wars.1] Well, that betrayal DID let Britain leave the Seven Years War in fine style. Good thing, too. It meant that in the ARW the British Foreign office was left as the most unpopular member at the beggars table when it came to trying to attract allies.
2] Haven't you heard? A wog's a wog. Uh, I mean, a Yank's a Yank.
3] Except the agitators were men like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, who were mostly sidelined by the time of the First & Second Continental Congresses. Almost unique among revolutions that were NOT bloodless the moderates were able to maintain control of the American side of the ARW basically from 1774 going forward.
4] It might be argued I think that when the Americans were more troublesome it was from 1763 to 1773, but mostly confined to Boston. From time to time, the British were more willing to be amenable (at least when the Whigs were in charge). But after the Tea Party, and Lord North's ascension? It seems that while the Continental Congress did wonders for concentrating the American POV to one single voice to direct to Parliament, a voice of respectful moderation, by this time all moderation was being tossed aside in London.