But it does matter about finding a solution to the issue between the english and the colonies.
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.
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.
"Responsible government" isn't the problem. "All the benefits of being independent" are.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.
Because the colonies were getting all the benefits of being part of the British Empire in exchange for very limited expectations of them paying taxes (the attempts to tighten control beyond that being in response to American recalcitrance, not the intent all along).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.
It gets economic benefit by trading with them as independent, too. Huge amounts of manpower resources? Obviously this is dependent on population growth, but in this period, we have 2-3 million Americans (counting slaves) vs. (according to this: http://www.thepotteries.org/dates/census.htm) 6.4 million in Great Britain.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.
Well, I'm using free trade in the sense of trading freely - there's no need for special permits or something. Sloppy wording, I suppose.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.
Gotcha.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.
Still leaves telling Sheffield that the Americans get representatives, it has to trust that Yorkshire MPs care.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.
Speaking as someone who believes if you're going to do democracy at all you should do it properly, I agree. But I don't see that being seen as a good by the powers that be, and not because they want to make the people ignored entirely.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.
No more than it a was a tiny, ranting minority portraying British behavior OTL as something Neroesque.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.
It's not even about good faith. It's "In case someone breaks this agreement, then what?"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.
And is volatility in costs not hitting say, Yorkshire, the case for a build up 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.
But in general, the situation the colonies are getting is the rule, not the exception?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.
Given the context that happened in, I suspect that it would happen if that happened anyway.Yet it would stop the confiscation of weapons, which was the event that kicked off the revolution.
But it does matter about finding a solution to the issue between the english and the colonies.
Not particularly. The rights and wrongs of the situation in the abstract don't matter that much, its the actual institutional interests and ideologies of the time that matter. The American believe what they believe, and saying they were wrong to believe it may be true or false but its mostly irrelevant.
Yes but finding what the actual problems are (and thus a way to fix it that will appeal to both sides). My idea for a general solution is for the abolition of the rotten bouroughs and the establishment of a general reform extending the representation of Britain to include both the colonies and to places that receive little to none in Britain.
..
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.
....
I would imagine the creation of new colonies would be decided by parliament, as previously