WI: England tries to pre-empt the American Revolution.

[JedidiahStott]

Screwed
Maligned
Cheated
Deprived

and with slight variation of the original sentence...
Mistreated
Discriminated
Abused
Repressed

The term actually derives from the slang college term for a servant at Cambridge university , a 'gyp". "a college servant, who attends upon a number of students... [who] calls them in the morning, brushes their clothes, carries parcels for them... and waits at their parties and so on.". The communal kitchen for student use in some Cambridge colleges is still called a gyp room

Which in turn derives from the Greek gypas, a vulture. The picking and plucking tendencies of the gyps being notorious.

The term was also used occasionally in WWI for a batman, by derivation.

Derivation from the Roma people is but mal trouve. Some people must always presume the worst of anything.

 

[Socrates]

The tax thing could have gone on for a long while as a low level disobedience without exploding in revolution if the British government had reacted to events like the Boston Tea Party by investigating them as criminal activities and charging those responsible, rather than closing down the entire Port of Boston and abolishing the Massachussetts assembly.

An overall compromise would be something like:

- The colonies are allowed to trade with other colonies directly, if not with Europe
- An acceptance that sovereignty ultimately lies with parliament, but sovereignty will be devolved to the colonial legislatures for all domestic matters
- Religious establishment and practice in the colonies will always be considered a domestic matter
- The colonies will be expected to make a yearly contribution to imperial coffers, larger than present, to be raised however the local assembly sees fit
- The colonies will have representatives in the imperial parliament, and it is promised their views will be taken particularly seriously for matters that affect the colonies
- The colonies will not make war, either with the natives or with foreign powers, without acceptance from parliament
- Westward expansion will be allowed in an orderly and timely manner
- Commissions in the British armed forces will be made open to the colonists, particularly for those stationed in the Americas
- While parliament may decide where troops are based, the precise location and manner of their housing in the colonies will be decided by agreement between the local assembly and parliament, and paid for out of imperial coffers
- Each colony will establish its own court-martials for trials of soldiers accused of crimes within its territory
- The principles enshrined in the 1689 Bill of Rights apply to all citizens throughout the Empire

 

[Dave Howery]

So the solution to avoiding the Revolution is for Britain to let the colonists have what they want

pretty much. The colonists really liked being ignored by far off London, managing their own affairs, etc. Most of what they wanted from London was troops to smack down the French and natives who raided into their western territory... something that London was irregular in providing. Once the foreign menace was removed, the colonists thought that things would go back to the way they were before, and even better. They were already thriving, and thought that with the French and natives neutralized, they could really do well. Basically, they were really optimistic about the future, and London's new-found desire to clamp down on them really irked them. Even if it doesn't make sense to us today, it did to them back then. The vast majority of the colonists were angered about the new laws/taxes, and 30% of them were mad enough to go to war about it right off the bat...

 

[Faeelin]

The tax thing could have gone on for a long while as a low level disobedience without exploding in revolution if the British government had reacted to events like the Boston Tea Party by investigating them as criminal activities and charging those responsible, rather than closing down the entire Port of Boston and abolishing the Massachussetts assembly.

An overall compromise would be something like:

You know, you're making me want to dig up a quote I once found after the Boston Massacre, where an MP discussed how the vast scope of the American Empire meant that certian English liberties couldn't be afforded there. For some reason.

 

[Elfwine]

Basically, they were really optimistic about the future, and London's new-found desire to clamp down on them really irked them. Even if it doesn't make sense to us today, it did to them back then. The vast majority of the colonists were angered about the new laws/taxes, and 30% of them were mad enough to go to war about it right off the bat...

The aim of policy only became a matter of clamping down on the colonies when the colonists started going from protest to insurrection.

Socrates: So what exactly is Parliament/Britain/The Empire getting in exchange for all of this? Because that looks like the colonists make virtual no serious concessions.

Duties (as in custom duties, not general obligations) stay as something they can ignore as much as they please, apparently.

 

[Faeelin]

Socrates: So what exactly is Parliament getting in exchange for all of this? Because that looks like the colonists make virtual no serious concessions.

The colonies will be expected to make a yearly contribution to imperial coffers, larger than present, to be raised however the local assembly sees fit.

 

[Dave Howery]

The aim of policy only became a matter of clamping down on the colonies when the colonists started going from protest to insurrection.

the 'protest to insurrection' all began with London's desire to install new taxes, stop smuggling, and take an active hand in managing the colonies... something the colonists didn't really want. The only way for London to pre-empt the problem would be to step back and return to the benign neglect that had been in place before. It was London's failure to do so that led to the whole protest/rebellion/revolution. Looking at it and judging it 200+ years after the fact is kinda pointless...

 

[Socrates]

The aim of policy only became a matter of clamping down on the colonies when the colonists started going from protest to insurrection.

Socrates: So what exactly is Parliament getting in exchange for all of this? Because that looks like the colonists make virtual no serious concessions.

More money for the exchequer, acceptance of parliamentary sovereignty and a content populace.

Although, I don't think the number of concessions from each side is the right way to judge this. What can be considered fair by both sides should be.

For example, imagine if an employer has an employee that is paid £25k a year. The employer would rather pay as little as possible, but would be willing to pay up to £30k a year, as he's a good employee. The employee thinks he is underpaid, and deserves £35k a year, but will accept £30k. Otherwise, he will find employment elsewhere. If they have a negotiation and agree a £5k payrise, it's a good deal for both. It's a bit silly to say "well, the employee has made no concessions."

 

[Elfwine]

the 'protest to insurrection' all began with London's desire to install new taxes, stop smuggling, and take an active hand in managing the colonies... something the colonists didn't really want. The only way for London to pre-empt the problem would be to step back and return to the benign neglect that had been in place before. It was London's failure to do so that led to the whole protest/rebellion/revolution. Looking at it and judging it 200+ years after the fact is kinda pointless...

Looking at in terms of how much Parliament can surrender is not going to give us any solutions anyone at the time would have accepted, however.

 

[Dave Howery]

Looking at in terms of how much Parliament can surrender is not going to give us any solutions anyone at the time would have accepted, however.

well, the goal of the OP is to pre-empt the ARW. The only real way to do that is to return to London's general neglect of the colonies. In OTL, they weren't willing to do that, so we had the war. Basically, I'm meeting the terms of the OP. You can theorize about the colonists having a complete change of heart and accepting all the new taxes and rules, but I think that's unlikely. My POD requires changing the minds of a few people in London, yours requires changing the minds of however-many colonists there were in America. Which is more likely?

 

[Elfwine]

More money for the exchequer, acceptance of parliamentary sovereignty and a content populace.

Although, I don't think the number of concessions from each side is the right way to judge this. What can be considered fair by both sides should be.

And it's completely unfair for it to be "the colonists give up almost nothing, Parliament accepts virtually every colonial demand."

This is as close to a compromise as the colonists make: - The colonies will be expected to make a yearly contribution to imperial coffers, larger than present, to be raised however the local assembly sees fit

For example, imagine if an employer has an employee that is paid £25k a year. The employer would rather pay as little as possible, but would be willing to pay up to £30k a year, as he's a good employee. The employee thinks he is underpaid, and deserves £35k a year, but will accept £30k. Otherwise, he will find employment elsewhere. If they have a negotiation and agree a £5k payrise, it's a good deal for both. It's a bit silly to say "well, the employee has made no concessions."

That's an interesting but inaccurate metaphor.

The colonists are in the position of benefiting from British protection, not being seriously expected (until the 1763+ stuff) to contribute, and substantial self-government.

In exchange, they can ignore custom duties.

Interesting bit of information:

http://www.usahistory.info/colonial/Navigation-Acts.html

Most of this has been covered by others, but I think this is interesting given that we tend to see the Navigation Acts presented in terms of what they did to harm colonial trade:

Some things, however, the Parliament did purely to favor the colonies, -- it prohibited the raising of tobacco in England and kept Spanish tobacco out by high duties, it kept out Swedish iron by a high tariff, to the advantage of the colonies, and it paid a bounty on various colonial products.

And this:

But in one respect the British policy greatly stimulated American industry. It made New England a shipbuilding community. This was brought about by the fact that the Navigation Laws placed the colonial-built ship on the same footing with the English-built ship.


Figured that should be posted, since coming up with something that is mutually acceptable on the Navigation Acts is going to matter.

 

[Elfwine]

well, the goal of the OP is to pre-empt the ARW. The only real way to do that is to return to London's general neglect of the colonies. In OTL, they weren't willing to do that, so we had the war. Basically, I'm meeting the terms of the OP. You can theorize about the colonists having a complete change of heart and accepting all the new taxes and rules, but I think that's unlikely. My POD requires changing the minds of a few people in London, yours requires changing the minds of however-many colonists there were in America. Which is more likely?

Not all of the colonists were on the side of the rebellion. Not even close.

 

[Dave Howery]

Not all of the colonists were on the side of the rebellion. Not even close.

Of course not. at the start of the rebellion, only about 30% of the colonists were actually willing to take up arms. But before the open warfare, the colonists were overwhelmingly against London imposing new taxes and rules on them. Few of the colonists were willing to openly break with London... nearly all of them wanted to stay in the Empire; they just wanted London to back off and let them keep doing things the same old way. The number of people who wanted to actually rebel and form a new country were a handful. The number grew as tensions mounted and London reacted badly to the whole thing. Even after open warfare began, there weren't all that many who wanted to break from England completely. The idea grew during the war until it became an open rebellion/revolution. The colonists split from one camp that wanted England to come to terms to two camps, the patriots and tories. And so on and so on.

None of which is really relevant to the OP, which is to pre-empt the ARW. Which is best done by having London back down.

 

[Elfwine]

Of course not. at the start of the rebellion, only about 30% of the colonists were actually willing to take up arms. But before the open warfare, the colonists were overwhelmingly against London imposing new taxes and rules on them. Few of the colonists were willing to openly break with London... nearly all of them wanted to stay in the Empire; they just wanted London to back off and let them keep doing things the same old way.

"Wanting London to back off" and "willing to go beyond grumbling to make it do so" are different enough that the numbers of the latter are more telling on how much opposition British policy is facing.

No one likes taxes, but not everyone was tarring and feathering tax collectors and planning to burn revenue cutters.

None of which is really relevant to the OP, which is to pre-empt the ARW. Which is best done by having London back down.

"Best" only if one ignores British feelings utterly and treats it all as the fault of Parliament, with no responsibility on anyone else's part except George's.

Getting rid of Sam Adams would do more than replacing Lord North.

 

[Dave Howery]

"Wanting London to back off" and "willing to go beyond grumbling to make it do so" are different enough that the numbers of the latter are more telling on how much opposition British policy is facing.

No one likes taxes, but not everyone was tarring and feathering tax collectors and planning to burn revenue cutters.

"Best" only if one ignores British feelings utterly and treats it all as the fault of Parliament, with no responsibility on anyone else's part except George's.

Getting rid of Sam Adams would do more than replacing Lord North.

not really sure where you're going with this. You're second guessing people from 240 years ago, which is kinda pointless. Remember that even when London did back down except for leaving the tax on tea, even that wasn't good enough for the colonists... they wanted every new tax/law gone. Not sure just what the population of the colonies was back in 1776, but considering that 30% of the population was willing to take up arms against the Crown, that's a significant number of people. So, again, if you really want to pre-empt the ARW, London needs to back down. Completely. In fact, the best way to pre-empt it would be for London to not even consider the new taxes/laws and stay in 'benign neglect' role...

 

[Elfwine]

not really sure where you're going with this. You're second guessing people from 240 years ago, which is kinda pointless. Remember that even when London did back down except for leaving the tax on tea, even that wasn't good enough for the colonists... they wanted every new tax/law gone. Not sure just what the population of the colonies was back in 1776, but considering that 30% of the population was willing to take up arms against the Crown, that's a significant number of people. So, again, if you really want to pre-empt the ARW, London needs to back down. Completely. In fact, the best way to pre-empt it would be for London to not even consider the new taxes/laws and stay in 'benign neglect' role...

I'm going with "the only way you can have this be solved by Parliament backing down is if the colonists consider that good enough".

The colonists are the ones who decided this was a problem, they're the ones who have to decide it isn't.

 

[Dave Howery]

I'm going with "the only way you can have this be solved by Parliament backing down is if the colonists consider that good enough".

The colonists are the ones who decided this was a problem, they're the ones who have to decide it isn't.

I think they would have. As I said, few of them wanted to actively break from the Empire, so London backing down completely (or better yet, never bringing it up in the first place) would do the job nicely. The main problem with the OP is that by the time mentioned, it was too late to stop the war by cracking down on people harder...

 

[Elfwine]

I think they would have. As I said, few of them wanted to actively break from the Empire, so London backing down completely (or better yet, never bringing it up in the first place) would do the job nicely. The main problem with the OP is that by the time mentioned, it was too late to stop the war by cracking down on people harder...

It would do the job nicely for those who were willing to burn revenue cutters and the like to be stopped too.

Whether or not they wanted to break from the empire, those who wanted to pick a fight over Parliament passing laws have to stop - or Parliament might as well declare the American colonies independent and save the expense of protecting them.

 

[Dave Howery]

It would do the job nicely for those who were willing to burn revenue cutters and the like to be stopped too.

Whether or not they wanted to break from the empire, those who wanted to pick a fight over Parliament passing laws have to stop - or Parliament might as well declare the American colonies independent and save the expense of protecting them.

that assumes they can find them... the colonists had no problem with hiding the miscreants, smuggling went on regardless, and people resisted in general. Considering what the Brits did in OTL and the lack of success, trying to crack down harder isn't going to calm the situation down, and is likely to make it worse. As for 'declaring the colonies independent'... considering that the Brits went to war for a long time and spent a pile of money of trying to stop just that, it seems unlikely.

 

[Elfwine]

that assumes they can find them... the colonists had no problem with hiding the miscreants, smuggling went on regardless, and people resisted in general. Considering what the Brits did in OTL and the lack of success, trying to crack down harder isn't going to calm the situation down, and is likely to make it worse. As for 'declaring the colonies independent'... considering that the Brits went to war for a long time and spent a pile of money of trying to stop just that, it seems unlikely.

Considering that Parliament accepting that the colonies produce nothing but costs for the Exchequer and diversions of effort for the British military renders them independent in all but name, I'm not sure that's any more likely.

The only reason for Britain to be committed to spending spend a drop of blood or a clipped farthing on the colonies is if they get something out of it, whether it's "all wealth to the motherland" or balanced.

Okay, amend that: The only reason other than pride, and pride only came into it after things got sticky.