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

[Socrates]

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.

They also have to accept Westward settlement in an orderly manner. But the money alone is quite a substantial compromise, depending on the amount it is initially set at, and could be increased in future.

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.

And the employee is in the position of having all the good things that come with a job. I would also reject the idea that they did not contribute pre-1763. Their militias made significant blood sacrifices in the previous two wars with France.

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.

There's also the North Carolina indigo trade, which was entirely propped up by HMG's subsidies. But yes, the navigation acts could be dismantled on both sides.

Anyway, I think my list could be acceptable to both sides. By far the most important things from London's perspective was an official acceptance of sovereignty, even just notional, an accepted as legitimate source of financing from the colonies that could be increased gradually in future, and a populace that was happy under British rule. It gets all of these here.

 

[mrmandias]

What if England tried to pre-empt the revolution through arrests and other measures? Thomas Jefferson in 1774 wrote “A Summary View of the Rights of British America” this basically said that the allegiance to England was only voluntary. If the English had of arrested Thomas Jefferson immediately after he wrote this, would that have helped to stop the revolution from ever occurring or would it have just increased tension?

This would do a lot of damage back home in England, perhaps even bringing down the government.

 

[Socrates]

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...

Once that dynamic sets in, you're going to have war. The list I gave would be perfectly acceptable to the colonists. What was most important to them was that (a) they didn't have any threats to their economy (b) they wouldn't be hemmed into the West and (c) they were to be treated as equal Englishmen in the Empire. You don't even need it all at once. If the colonists see they have a legal manner of redress, other than just asking, then the bulk of the political class would probably hope to push the legal route in future.

 

[mrmandias]

Elfwine. Your pointless anti-Americanism is showing, again.

True. These little moralistic tirades he goes on are extra-pointless in that they really have nothing to do with the historical realities and how Britain could have come out of the ARW and its run-up better.

 

[Elfwine]

They also have to accept Westward settlement in an orderly manner. But the money alone is quite a substantial compromise, depending on the amount it is initially set at, and could be increased in future.

That's not much of a compromise. As for the money, that might be a substantial compromise IF the amount that the colonists are obligated to pay is, well, substantial.

I mean, if the colonists - and I'm making up numbers for illustration's sake - have 10% of the wealth of Britain and in exchange pay 10% of the amount paid by Britons to the Exchequer, that's one thing.

But that's not "substantial" except by comparison with "a fraction of a percent" (the case beforehand).

And the employee is in the position of having all the good things that come with a job. I would also reject the idea that they did not contribute pre-1763. Their militias made significant blood sacrifices in the previous two wars with France.

The point is that the colonies aren't acting as an employee. So they get all the good things from being part of the Empire without the obligations of tax paying.

As for the colonial contribution in arms - I don't know about blood, but what I've read about the colonial involvement in the French and Indian War suggests a hit or miss record:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Militia+groups

"The function of each colonial militia was principally to defend the settlers' homes and villages against Indian raids, and at this they were largely successful.


Colonial militias were much less effective when used for offensive purposes on extended campaigns far from the militia members' homes. George Washington discovered this when, as a colonel in the Virginia militia, he had great difficulty recruiting enough men to fight the French and Indian War, which lasted from 1754 to 1763. Few men were willing to report for duty. Of those who did, few were well armed, and many quickly deserted the troops and returned home. Some militia officers instituted drafts to recruit more men, but even then, many of the draftees simply paid less-qualified men to report in their places. The British were finally able to win the war when Prime Minister William Pitt made changes in recruiting policies and the military bureaucracy, which made serving in the militia more palatable for the American colonists."

We can probably go over why this was the case, but the result was British officers continually frustrated with the irregularness of the militia.

That's not just snobbery.

Anyway, I think my list could be acceptable to both sides. By far the most important things from London's perspective was an official acceptance of sovereignty, even just notional, an accepted as legitimate source of financing from the colonies that could be increased gradually in future, and a populace that was happy under British rule. It gets all of these here.

It gets nominal acknowledgment of sovereignty and very conditional financing in exchange for giving in everywhere else.

It's a great deal for the Americans and a mediocre deal for Parliament.

Mind you, I think it's a start - but I think it's tilted too much in favor of the Americans, who have very few obligations in exchange for Britain granting them pretty much everything they demanded in full.

 

[Elfwine]

True. These little moralistic tirades he goes on are extra-pointless in that they really have nothing to do with the historical realities and how Britain could have come out of the ARW and its run-up better.

They have a lot to do with the historical realities. Focusing only on the American POV because the American POV talked about liberty gives a very distorted view of the situation.

And if you want Britain to "come out of the ARW and its run-up better", you definitely need to actually look at the British POV. Britain is not coming off better by agreeing to terms where the colonists have all the benefits of independence without the costs of having to protect themselves.

 

[Socrates]

Mind you, I think it's a start - but I think it's tilted too much in favor of the Americans, who have very few obligations in exchange for Britain granting them pretty much everything they demanded in full.

They don't get everything they demanded. The economic ones are the biggest ones and they don't get trade with Europe, which was worth a lot more than trade with Mexico, and they have to pay more into imperial coffers, which could (and likely would) increase substantially with time. They also don't get to bounce the Empire into wars with Indian tribes.

As for everything else, most of it is simply getting rights that most educated British people would accept, so it won't seem like much of a concession from the British side.

 

[Socrates]

And if you want Britain to "come out of the ARW and its run-up better", you definitely need to actually look at the British POV. Britain is not coming off better by agreeing to terms where the colonists have all the benefits of independence without the costs of having to protect themselves.

Yet if they manage to establish the principle that revenue can be increased, and a mechanism to do it, it will suddenly be coming off a lot better in the longer term.

 

[Socrates]

Also, the granting of responsible government to the Canadian provinces and later other dominions was something where far more "concessions" were granted from the British side. In fact, were there any concessions from the colonies here? Does Elfwine thus think these acts were poor moves by the British?

 

[mrmandias]

They have a lot to do with the historical realities. Focusing only on the American POV because the American POV talked about liberty gives a very distorted view of the situation.

And if you want Britain to "come out of the ARW and its run-up better", you definitely need to actually look at the British POV. Britain is not coming off better by agreeing to terms where the colonists have all the benefits of independence without the costs of having to protect themselves.

The American POV and the British POV combined is what led, OTL, to the successful American Revolution.

So if you want to butterfly the Revolution, you need a different British POV. Or else a different American POV that is premised on something other than 'the American POV was wrongs, wrongs!'

 

[yulzari]

The best way for Britain to pre-empt the 2nd American Civil War would have been to impose a Belizean solution which was a possibility being touted in Parliament at the time.

 

[othyrsyde]

So did the Kingdom of England invent time travel?

 

[Faeelin]

The best way for Britain to pre-empt the 2nd American Civil War would have been to impose a Belizean solution which was a possibility being touted in Parliament at the time.

What now was that?

 

[yulzari]

A Belizean solution is the term whereby a colonising power tells a colony they are to become independent whether they want to or not. Usually because the colonising power is fed up with subsidising the colony.

A variation was when Newfoundland became bankrupt and Britain refused to have it back as a colony.

There is an American assumption that Britain wanted to keep the American colonies almost out of spite. If there was no profit in it (and there was none) then Britain still felt it had a duty of support to it's loyal subjects who demonstrated their loyal support for their King and country by taking up arms to defend themselves and defeat the forces of insurrection.

Concepts of duty and loyalty were taken seriously in those days and loyal Americans who answered the call of King and country were intimidated and persecuted for doing no more than was their duty at the time.

It is one of those ironies of history that George Washington had sought a regular British Army commission instead of a local Militia one. Had he been successful he would have been active in combatting the insurrection. A bit like Napoleon's interest in joining the Royal Navy.

The American colonies were started initially to make money. Later they were used to transport criminals away from Britain. Transportation having been introduced because the Judiciary were liberal enough to want some alternative to hanging. There was a view in Parliament that if the colonies were making a loss then they should be told they were on their own and to pay to defend themselves.

It is a curiosity that it is common for certain well to do American families to claim descent from the very few Mayflower colonists but I have never heard of any claim to have descended from the many thousands of petty criminals transported to America.

Lest I be accused of being anti american I can point to my family being proudly represented in the deserters lists in the 2nd American Civil War from the republican side and from both sides in the 3rd American Civil War. Also that my mother was a US Army Master Sergeant. I made this post merely to point out that Britain did not necessarily want, let alone need, to force Americans to remain under the Crown. Had wiser policies been pursued by both sides it is quite possible that a Dominion status, akin to the later Canadian one, could have been achieved. Personally I think that would not have been a good thing and Britain was better off without the American colonies.

 

[Elfwine]

The American POV and the British POV combined is what led, OTL, to the successful American Revolution.

So if you want to butterfly the Revolution, you need a different British POV. Or else a different American POV that is premised on something other than 'the American POV was wrongs, wrongs!'

But of course, "the British POV was denying representation" - nevermind how "representation" worked in Parliament in this era - is perfectly legitimate.

I will never stop repeating that the existing system DOES give the Americans the representation "enjoyed" by Englishmen until people stop treating it as a matter of the forces of democracy vs. the forces of tyranny.


Socrates: Granting "responsible government" is one thing. But this is my position:

I think a policy worth exploring would be something where the colonial autonomy within their own affairs (as does not relate to the larger issues of the empire) is made de jure, but the obligation of the colonists - as British subjects - to pay as much as any other Briton whose rights they want. You want your rights acknowledged, acknowledge your obligations.

So to go down your list point by point:

- 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 (depends on what happens in regards to Quebec)
- 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

Blue is to the gain of the colonies, red the gain of the empire in the sense that's distinct from the interests of the colonies, and purple for something where those two don't appear in conflict.

In exchange for a sum that may or may not be reliably delivered, Britain gives (Note that I'm not arguing that all of these are all unfair or anything of the sort, I'm just comparing how much the colonists get out of the situation relative to how much they provide - doesn't have to be an equal number of points, but it's not really worth maintaining rule of colonies that there's no benefit from, is there?):

Free trade with other colonies (I presume this means all of Britain's colonies).

Sovereignty "ultimately rests with Parliament" - but it's unclear what exactly that means for making decisions of policy. Would intercolonial things such as say, the issue of Vermont, be settled by Parliament, or would that be "domestic matters"?

The entire system of representation has suddenly become considerably more problematic. How do you tell Sheffield that Boston has representatives but it doesn't merit them?

How do you deal with the Americans who think representation is 'impractical", or that American representatives will be a consistently ignored minority, or "corrupted" in London, or otherwise no good?

Frankly, this one opens several cans of worms within the context of the rights of 18th century Englishmen that people who think a transition to pure democracy couldn't happen fast enough seem to consider unimportant.

What happens if the colonists make war despite Parliament's wishes? This one sounds like the colonists are making some kind of concession, but what would it actually do in practice to limit it?

Westward expansion being allowed isn't a bad thing (in this context), but I suspect that telling the colonies that Parliament determines how the Ohio country is handled is going to be seen in a negative light here even if moving there is permitted.

Commissions in the army shouldn't be a problem, since if any shopkeeper with the money could buy it in Britain, the idea that a Bostonian bookkeeper buying it is worse is an insult to Knox.

Of course, granting commissions is more problematic, but that has more to do with the way the army works than whether Washington gets a slot, so it can be dealt with amicably enough if the rest is.

No one loses from it, however.

The barracking thing should be reasonable, but I'm not sure about the payment part. Especially since if (for example) Massachusetts is paying into the imperial coffers, what's wrong with Massachusetts paying for the barracks of soldiers stationed there?

Not sure anyone really loses, but in blue for the fact the colonial "No." seems to have more sway here.

On court martials: Is this standard practice? Meaning, are soldiers who do something in - say - Ireland - usually tried by Irish court martials?


And, well, the 1689 Bill of Rights being applicable to all British subjects is pure fairness. No one loses.


Sorry if this is a bit of a wall of text, just that there's a lot to cover and I'm a questioning sort of guy.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Was it really realistic to send the king to the Americas? It would take, what, a month to get there? He would have to be there for a few weeks at least, then a few weeks to get home.

This isn't the same as if he had gone to Hannover, as he would be completely out of contact. While in America, there is the potential for fast frigates to cross quicker with messages, but as he isn't going to actually BE there all that long, it won't make much difference.

Thus, there will need to be a Regency in England. The Prince of Wales is a teenager, so we're looking at George III's brothers and probably the Duke of Cumberland, as I don't think Gloucester was in very high standing

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Faeelin]

I like how one of Elfwine's objections is "but this would raise questions about Britain's shitty electoral system at home!"

 

[Socrates]

But of course, "the British POV was denying representation" - nevermind how "representation" worked in Parliament in this era - is perfectly legitimate.

I will never stop repeating that the existing system DOES give the Americans the representation "enjoyed" by Englishmen until people stop treating it as a matter of the forces of democracy vs. the forces of tyranny.

We've done this debate a dozen times. In every part of England, there were voters that would affect the composition of parliament, although not all men got the vote. In no part of the colonies were there any voters that could do this. You have made clear you consider this to be an identical situation, although I think you need to accept this is a very minority position.

Granting "responsible government" is one thing. But this is my position:

But Canadians didn't pay the precise same taxes as Englishmen once given responsible government. Parliament got precisely nothing back from granting this, other than citizens that were happier and less likely to revolt in future. They get more here.

In exchange for a sum that may or may not be reliably delivered, Britain gives (Note that I'm not arguing that all of these are all unfair or anything of the sort, I'm just comparing how much the colonists get out of the situation relative to how much they provide

Changes from 1763 onwards status quo isn't an analysis of what everyone "gets" out of the situation. It's just the changes. I'd also point out you use the post-7YW situation as the benchmark, rather than the previous two centuries. The step up in control after 7YW all involved the British taking more power and the colonists getting nothing in return.

doesn't have to be an equal number of points, but it's not really worth maintaining rule of colonies that there's no benefit from, is there?)

Aside from these changes. Britain gets huge amounts of economic benefit via trade with the colonies, and this would increase dramatically as America's population grew. They would also get huge amounts of manpower resources for the armed forces, if they were smart. I'd also say this is an odd way to conceive the situation. It's like saying that Britain now probably gets a net negative out of North East England so they should just let it go.

Free trade with other colonies (I presume this means all of Britain's colonies).

I meant Spanish and French colonies actually. In fact, I don't even mean "free trade", just that they're allowed to trade at all.

Sovereignty "ultimately rests with Parliament" - but it's unclear what exactly that means for making decisions of policy. Would intercolonial things such as say, the issue of Vermont, be settled by Parliament, or would that be "domestic matters"?

I would imagine the creation of new colonies would be decided by parliament, as previously. Although this would be a case where the American MPs would obviously be given a good hearing on what was best for the situation.

The entire system of representation has suddenly become considerably more problematic. How do you tell Sheffield that Boston has representatives but it doesn't merit them?

How do you know that Boston gets its own representatives, rather than, say, being part of Eastern Massachussetts constituency? That would be the same position as Sheffield being part of Yorkshire constituency.

That said, I imagine the situation would cause more debate about electoral reform at home, which was put off by several decades due to the authoritarian reaction to the American and French revolutions. That's a good thing for Britain.

How do you deal with the Americans who think representation is 'impractical", or that American representatives will be a consistently ignored minority, or "corrupted" in London, or otherwise no good?

The first lot you say, "well that's why domestic matters are devolved". The last lot you ignore, as they will be a tiny ranting minority.

What happens if the colonists make war despite Parliament's wishes? This one sounds like the colonists are making some kind of concession, but what would it actually do in practice to limit it?

I imagine the shitstorm that would occur if they tried it, and other colonies would not be sympathetic to the one trying to upset the situation. In reality, there aren't limits on a bunch of this stuff on either side (e.g. what's to stop parliament simply ignoring the American MPs). You can't form a political agreement without some good faith on each side.

Westward expansion being allowed isn't a bad thing (in this context), but I suspect that telling the colonies that Parliament determines how the Ohio country is handled is going to be seen in a negative light here even if moving there is permitted.

As long as it's made clear the Ohio country will be open in reasonable time, it is something the colonists would grudgingly accept. It's not like the Quebec Act, which barred them from it.

The barracking thing should be reasonable, but I'm not sure about the payment part. Especially since if (for example) Massachusetts is paying into the imperial coffers, what's wrong with Massachusetts paying for the barracks of soldiers stationed there?

The issue would be that some colonies (or indeed, even individual colonists) could suddenly face huge expense over a troop build up. It's more reasonable that everyone pays more than they would otherwise into imperial coffers, which then pays out for troops costs, to stop volatility in costs hitting the colonies.

On court martials: Is this standard practice? Meaning, are soldiers who do something in - say - Ireland - usually tried by Irish court martials?

I believe they were done in a few locations, such as Kingston in Jamaica. But where you were tried wouldn't relate to where the crime was. More where you were when the court was announced.

And, well, the 1689 Bill of Rights being applicable to all British subjects is pure fairness. No one loses.

Yet it would stop the confiscation of weapons, which was the event that kicked off the revolution.

Sorry if this is a bit of a wall of text, just that there's a lot to cover and I'm a questioning sort of guy.

No problem.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Paul Foot's book on the history of the vote in Britain makes it clear that there was effectively a block on electoral reform from the end of the Civil War onwards, after seeing what forces the ECW unleashed. So, any point that they would worry about impacts on the British franchise is valid, and they wouldn't just worry about the immediate impact but that the forces that got unleashed a century ago would come back in full

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[mrmandias]

But of course, "the British POV was denying representation" - nevermind how "representation" worked in Parliament in this era - is perfectly legitimate.

I will never stop repeating that the existing system DOES give the Americans the representation "enjoyed" by Englishmen until people stop treating it as a matter of the forces of democracy vs. the forces of tyranny.

Which means that you're not doing alternate history, you're trying to litigate your OTL grievances about the past. History doesn't care whether you think the Americans were right or wrong.