WI: Taxation with representation

[Elfwine]

I don't get it, you mean the process would be too slow? Maybe in exceptional cases, London or the Governor alone can allow the entrance/passage of any other military force, provided that he is satisfied that the colony's security is at risk and the militia cannot defend the colony alone effectively; but the legislature must ratify such a decision within 60/90/120 days.

Yes. Too likely to be bogged down in one form of problem or another.

If you ever want to move Connecticut troops into Massachusetts, you won't want to wait for the legislature to agree.

And personally, I'd drop that part entirely. Again, if anyone is bothering to move troops from outside (colony) into (colony), it's something that should be made to run as smoothly as possible, so at best this is a meaningless thing and at worst its a bloody hindrance to defense or concentrating forces in a given place as a base.

You see, in the 300+ years of the British Empire, nobody seems to have ever seriously proposed adding colonial representatives to the British parliament, (other than during the ARW as a last-ditch effort) so I really have to assume it wasn't a very good idea.

Certainly wasn't something the American colonies (going by Socrates's idea that we use the body representing the Patriots to speak for "the colonists") felt was practical, and they were the ones - or chosen by the ones - who were hollering about how the absence of representation was a sign of more-than-Neroesque tyranny.

One thing I think one would need to sort out for representation or any other compromise to work is some acceptance on the part of the complainers that the right for their grievances to be heard is not the same as the right for their wishes to be granted.

It's like the right to a fair trial not granting you a verdict of "innocent".

So long as the idea that Parliament has to give in is the idea that the Americans are basing their position on, there isn't any possible compromise that can be made even if Parliament says "Fine, let's talk."

I'm focusing on the Americans because it was their complaining that turned this from "ad hoc tax measure" to "conflict over what was acceptable". That's not to say it was Wrong (we've been over that). But you can't have an argument with yourself.

 

[Tripwire]

I maintain from reading source documents that the real problem between the colonies and Great Britain was conflicting trade interests, and the (by the time of the war) tiny taxes on a handful of goods, maintained so that Great Britain could save face, were more of a proxy for everything else.

The colonists would have bitterly resented anything perceived as increasing British authority over the colonies, and adding American representatives would really (for them) be moving in the wrong direction.

 

[Romanos]

Yes. Too likely to be bogged down in one form of problem or another.

If you ever want to move Connecticut troops into Massachusetts, you won't want to wait for the legislature to agree.

And personally, I'd drop that part entirely. Again, if anyone is bothering to move troops from outside (colony) into (colony), it's something that should be made to run as smoothly as possible, so at best this is a meaningless thing and at worst its a bloody hindrance to defense or concentrating forces in a given place as a base.

I see, but wasn't that an important issue in many colonials' minds after 1763? Iirc, they thought of it as a great provocation.

Maybe activate this if the number of troops is greater than a fixed number (20,000?) or in relation to size of the colony's militia?

 

[Socrates]

It's like the right to a fair trial not granting you a verdict of "innocent".

Actually, it's like the right to a fair trial not involving anyone coming from your society on the jury, but plenty of people just like the person making the allegations against you. But let's not derail the thread.

 

[Socrates]

You see, in the 300+ years of the British Empire, nobody seems to have ever seriously proposed adding colonial representatives to the British parliament, (other than during the ARW as a last-ditch effort) so I really have to assume it wasn't a very good idea.

Actually, it was more a first-ditch effort than a last-ditch one. From the 1902 Encyclopedia Brittanica:

"[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Between them were two courses, either of which the colonies were willing to accept. Under their theory there was no "imperial parliament." They were willing to have one constituted, even if I were only a development of the British parliament through admission of colonial representatives; but the time for this passed before the parties could debate it."

It was a middle ground that quickly fell away as both sides dug their heels in. The idea of Imperial Federation also existed later, with the support of people as important as Dominion Prime Ministers. [/FONT]

 

[Tripwire]

Actually, it was more a first-ditch effort than a last-ditch one. From the 1902 Encyclopedia Brittanica:

"[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Between them were two courses, either of which the colonies were willing to accept. Under their theory there was no "imperial parliament." They were willing to have one constituted, even if I were only a development of the British parliament through admission of colonial representatives; but the time for this passed before the parties could debate it."

It was a middle ground that quickly fell away as both sides dug their heels in. The idea of Imperial Federation also existed later, with the support of people as important as Dominion Prime Ministers. [/FONT]

Interesting. I especially had never heard of the latter part before.

I still don't think it would be at all practical in the 18th century, and many reasons why were raised by contemporary writers. Even radicals like Charles James Fox (who later declared that no country had a right to rule another without its consent) thought it was a bad idea when the idea was floated in 1778.

 

[Socrates]

Interesting. I especially had never heard of the latter part before.

I still don't think it would be at all practical in the 18th century, and many reasons why were raised by contemporary writers. Even radicals like Charles James Fox (who later declared that no country had a right to rule another without its consent) thought it was a bad idea when the idea was floated in 1778.

It was pointed out at the time that it took the same time to travel from the colonies to London in the 1760s as it took from Shetland to London in 1707, when the Union was formed.

But, yes, realistically you'd need some sort of local government too. Whether that is via some sort of shared sovereignty arrangement, or "devolved" sovereignty (as with the Scottish parliament now) would be a matter of debate. Most likely it would be an ambiguous fudge.

 

[De la Tour]

A decent idea would essentially be devolved colonial governments (this also deals with the eventual issue of the sheer resources of the OTL US overpowering the British homeland) and an 'Imperial Congress' called when necessary to deal with crises and co-ordinate wider policy.

 

[eliphas8]

Interesting. I especially had never heard of the latter part before.

I still don't think it would be at all practical in the 18th century, and many reasons why were raised by contemporary writers. Even radicals like Charles James Fox (who later declared that no country had a right to rule another without its consent) thought it was a bad idea when the idea was floated in 1778.

I suspect part of any compromise that worked would be that the colonial assemblies have at least the ability to legislate within the borders on some minor things. Kind of like the City of London has its own special rules and rights that where agreed upon a long long time ago.

 

[Socrates]

A decent idea would essentially be devolved colonial governments (this also deals with the eventual issue of the sheer resources of the OTL US overpowering the British homeland) and an 'Imperial Congress' called when necessary to deal with crises and co-ordinate wider policy.

I can't see this happening in the short term: if an imperial assembly developed it would have been an evolved Westminster. At this stage, the British wouldn't have been willing to allow the colonial assemblies parity with such an ancient body, although I suppose that could change as the colonies grow more important.

I also imagine that such colonial governments would have a lot more power than state governments in the US later had. That makes me wonder whether places the size of Rhode Island make sense. I imagine some of the colonies might have been grouped together. I know the Dominion of New England was very unpopular, but that was mainly because the colonies thought it was a plot to implement established Catholicism. If it was done in a "we're codifying your own local autonomy", I imagine there would be less resistance.

 

[JMT]

I think the best way to do it is to create dominions. A Dominion of New England, a Dominion of Pennsylvania, a Dominion of Virginia and a Dominion of Carolina.

 

[Elfwine]

Romanos: I wouldn't be surprised, but giving in on this point is giving in to unreasonable complaints.

Actually, it's like the right to a fair trial not involving anyone coming from your society on the jury, but plenty of people just like the person making the allegations against you. But let's not derail the thread.

"Let's not derail the thread even while I post something designed to provoke a disagreeing response."



As relates to this discussion, the right to have your grievances heard is just that. The right to be heard. That's it.

We can and have discussed the issue of trials, but the point I was making is that the American insistence that Parliament must accept their demands is unreasonable - it goes beyond something that can be compromised on when one side insists that the other side back down on what it's trying to do entirely.

 

[Socrates]

Romanos: I wouldn't be surprised, but giving in on this point is giving in to unreasonable complaints.



"Let's not derail the thread even while I post something designed to provoke a disagreeing response."

I felt you made a provocative point one way, and I made a provocative point the other. Thus, with each side having it's point, I felt it reasonable to move on.

As relates to this discussion, the right to have your grievances heard is just that. The right to be heard. That's it.

We can and have discussed the issue of trials, but the point I was making is that the American insistence that Parliament must accept their demands is unreasonable - it goes beyond something that can be compromised on when one side insists that the other side back down on what it's trying to do entirely.

Just to accurately establish their actual position: the colonists' feeling of injustice was not just about them getting policies they disliked (the "guilty verdict"), it was about the system of deciding those policies being unfair (equivalent to feeling due process was not followed). The colonists did not demand the other side back down entirely. That was what the British Parliament did with the Declaratory Act.

There are a bunch of other points I'm restraining myself from making here. This thread deserves to be about the possibilities for other courses of history, rather than the rights and wrongs of our timelines. It's not fair to derail every thread on this topic about who were the good guys and the bad guys, so let's leave it here.

 

[BlondieBC]

Here's a problem. Let's say the MPs agree to some terms on the subject.

What happens when the actual American settlers still move West?


Except that men like Franklin and Washington aren't the ones screaming that the British are oppressing the Americans and lying shamelessly in propaganda campaigns to misrepresent British policy.

Can't see anyone making Sam Adams an earl, however.

Well, overtime, the line would keep moving west. In another 10/20/30 years, the Americans would want to again move the line west and this would be trade for votes. Much like over time the King of England gave more power to parliament for more funding for various wars and adventures. And to be fair, it is probably not the Americans, but one colony at a time. So it could be easily Virginia want the Crown to approve some gain in the west for specific votes. It will be a gradual process.

Well, a lot depends on when an how it develops. You need various leaders helping counter act the Rebellion PR, so someone like Franklin is a good counter voice. Washington had influence in Virginia. And ok, you may still not like these leaders, the key is the Crown has to understand it needs better press and ways to tie more powerful men to the empire. It is not so critical which ones the King picks as long as he picks fairly wisely. So if Sam Adams or Hancock is a big issue, they are excluded. And I listed Franklin not Adams because I think Franklin is a great candidate. Rich, powerful, controls parts of press, and more moderate than some of the fire breathers.

 

[Elfwine]

There are a bunch of other points I'm restraining myself from making here. This thread deserves to be about the possibilities for other courses of history, rather than the rights and wrongs of our timelines. It's not fair to derail every thread on this topic about who were the good guys and the bad guys, so let's leave it here.

My point in this thread isn't about whether the colonists were right or wrong to protest - we've been over that before and I will bet you the crown jewels against a sixpence that we will again - the point is that so long as they refuse to accept Parliament's rulings, Parliament can offer any damn terms we can imagine and it won't do a lick of good at changing the situation.

The Stamp Act Congress declaring representation "impractical" renders offering any plan of MPs we can think of moot as long as that's the American position. So how do we change that?

That's the question that needs to be asked first and foremost.

If I can't use the Sons of Liberty as an example of American actions because they weren't operating under the instructions of the Congress, Ben Franklin isn't an example of American views for the same reason, so let's not bring Ben in here.

 

[Elfwine]

Well, overtime, the line would keep moving west. In another 10/20/30 years, the Americans would want to again move the line west and this would be trade for votes. Much like over time the King of England gave more power to parliament for more funding for various wars and adventures. And to be fair, it is probably not the Americans, but one colony at a time. So it could be easily Virginia want the Crown to approve some gain in the west for specific votes. It will be a gradual process.

You're not answering my question. What happens when the line is ignored?

It's not even "over time'. It's "The American settlers aren't going to give a copper kopek for the Proclamation Line no matter what their MPs agree."

Well, a lot depends on when an how it develops. You need various leaders helping counter act the Rebellion PR, so someone like Franklin is a good counter voice. Washington had influence in Virginia. And ok, you may still not like these leaders, the key is the Crown has to understand it needs better press and ways to tie more powerful men to the empire. It is not so critical which ones the King picks as long as he picks fairly wisely. So if Sam Adams or Hancock is a big issue, they are excluded. And I listed Franklin not Adams because I think Franklin is a great candidate. Rich, powerful, controls parts of press, and more moderate than some of the fire breathers.

Which also raises another question. Why are we rewarding would-be-disloyalists, as opposed to rewarding those who are loyal to show that changing to support of Parliament/the Crown is in your best interests?

 

[Mumby]

You're not answering my question. What happens when the line is ignored?

It's not even "over time'. It's "The American settlers aren't going to give a copper kopek for the Proclamation Line no matter what their MPs agree."



Which also raises another question. Why are we rewarding would-be-disloyalists, as opposed to rewarding those who are loyal to show that changing to support of Parliament/the Crown is in your best interests?

Well, if they cross the line, they are no member of any constituency in the empire, so they are unrepresented. Its they're own damn fault in that case. And besides, the lines would move when the hinterland is populated.

 

[Elfwine]

Well, if they cross the line, they are no member of any constituency in the empire, so they are unrepresented. Its they're own damn fault in that case. And besides, the lines would move when the hinterland is populated.

It being their own damn fault doesn't really solve anything about why the line exists in the first place, unless Britain really wants to abandon them to the natives.

Can't see that going over well given the ability of American propagandists.

And if the line is moving when the hinterland is populated, doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of having a line that's meant to bar it from being populated?

 

[De la Tour]

It being their own damn fault doesn't really solve anything about why the line exists in the first place, unless Britain really wants to abandon them to the natives.

Can't see that going over well given the ability of American propagandists.

And if the line is moving when the hinterland is populated, doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of having a line that's meant to bar it from being populated?

Couldn't they just say 'OK, move beyond the line but be sure to respect the natives' integrity'? Or declare that the existing line is the boundary of existing colonies and that to settle beyond it you need to apply to London (or the colonial authority) so arrangements can be made for a new 'state'?

 

[BlondieBC]

Yes, a residency requirement would be very useful towards a compromise.

As for the Lords, that's certainly the best scenario, but I do have my doubts about it; maybe it's best to just decide that colonies and their governors should have nothing to do with the Lords, at least for the next decades. And by war with France, are you referring to the Napoleonic wars? I'm not sure Americans would be too delighted to fight a war in Europe that, maybe they think has nothing to do with them; and being forced to fight it by the British would definetely ignite revolutionary actions sooner rather than later.


As for the taxation-MPs representation analogy, I think that initally the MPs number should be sympolic, but the compromise should contain a provision whereby a colony may individually "embrace" imperial taxes or portions thereof and automatically gain seats in the Commons by some (negotiations?) mechanism at any later time.

Well, on the war in Europe. The American troops are likely to be first used in taking land in North American and the Caribbean. This should help make it more acceptable to the colonialists. For a short war this should be fine. For a longer war such as Napoleonic OTL, I think concessions will have to be made to the various colonies. This is the most likely time for Virginia to be granted more Indian land for example.

I like how you phrase the embrace full status. This is what I was trying to get to. It allows the defusing of the crisis without extra benefits to the Crown. Either the colonist accept permanent very small number of MP or the Crown gets a WHOLE lot more money. The King can live with either one really.

And I think we tend to look for a single POD to go from OTL to something that is more integrated than the Dominions were in 1912 in a quick stroke. It is easy to do since we know with hindsight the direction the compromise has to grow, but it reality it is mostly likely a slow process and often informal. After all, this is how much of the British government structure really came into being, combined with a few big events. So just a light sample to show what I see as more likely if we assume the crown desires them.

1) POD 1720 - In Virginia, the crown agrees to give the Virginia more influence in selection of the Governor. The Crown agrees to allow the colonist to nominate 3 names for Vice Governor that will help advise the Royal Governor. All this will be later copied in other colonies. It is all informal, not a treaty or anything. It was done to solve an existing political need.

2) In 1740, the Crown takes other names on the list and offers them assignments in other parts of the Empire such as India. The other two names accept.

3) In 1745, one of the returning men form India is appointed Governor of Virginia.

4) By 1755, the process has evolved informally into its final state. The legislature of Virginia names 10 people who the King can pick for duties elsewhere in the Empire for 5 years. After this, one of them gets a 5 year appointment of Governor of Virginia after the India assignment. So over a couple of generations, we have what once seen as radical reform become a gradual process that people can live with.

5) About 1780, we could start life appointment of former Governors to the House of Lords.