WI: Taxation with representation

[BlondieBC]

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, various things. Sometimes the colonist will be fined or forcible removed by either the crown or the colonial government. More often it will be ignored unless it is causing a major issues with the Indians. It is a myth that there was a clean line with whites on one side and reds on the other. It was much more blended than that. In fact, half of my ancestors were these people who were west of the line from 1750 onwards and mostly of European descent. Strangely enough, DNA tests indicated that my fathers line is half basque, half lapplander who found it more convenient to live with the Cherokee well west of the line from the early 1700's onward. Sometimes the line will be moved west. And the moving west may be at a slower rate than OTL. And some Indian tribes may survive in their original location. For example, I can easily see the State of Cherokee existing today in the Dominion of North America. Same for the civilized tribes near upstate NY.

The 13 colonies did not go to war over any one single issues. It was a series of small issues combined with error by various governors that lead to this odd event. If we were in an ATL where it did not happen, and I wrote the ARW as an ATL, it would be quickly moved to the ASB section.

 

[Thande]

I've mentioned before that an interesting scenario might be an America analogous to South Africa: the cis-Appalachian colonies remain loyal to Britain and obey the Proclamation (obviously, in exchange for concessions elsewhere), but the Daniel Boone types and the republican idealists decide to go off and illegally start their own independent settler entities in the American interior, like the Boer republics in South Africa. These republics would be fighting the native Indians on a more even level, again like the Boers vs the Africans, with the colonial governments indifferent or hostile (at least officially), as opposed to the state support for American settlers in OTL.

 

[Mumby]

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'?

I did wonder whether it wouldn't be possible for the tribes to be consolidated into separate. The larger ones like the Cherokee and Seminole are certainly possible, and that situation was the practical fact in the Iroquois. I think that rather than having a solid mass of Indian Protectorate, a good idea would be the colonial governments going out into the hinterland and making treaties with the local tribes in which boundaries are set, vassalage is enforced and areas set aside for colonisation. Which brings me to a compelling idea. How about the colonies are reorganised and treated like the Welsh Marches? I mean it grants them a lot of autonomy, allows them to create vassals or new colonies in the hinterland, and provides for a slow and steady integration into Britain.

 

[Tyg]

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.

I like it; simple, informal, and gradual.

Given the costs of defense for the colonies, could the foundation for a more coherent military system be established in the same time frame? Even just a semi-formal integration of colonial militia with regulars in the region that had the individual colonies directly shouldering a financial burden of defense prior to/during the next war(s) with France or local/regional native Americans would be a useful precedent to build on.

 

[Falecius]

Its a mystery why there wasn't a position - heck, a department - specifically dedicated to handling the American territories.

Basically because prior around 1763 or so, Britain mostly didn't give a fuck.

The colonies already had a lot of autonomy. I gather that the Revolution was partly about what was perceived as revoking part of it in the aftermath of the SYW... I'm sure there are some contemporary comments to that effect.

 

[Thande]

Its a mystery why there wasn't a position - heck, a department - specifically dedicated to handling the American territories.

Britain didn't have a department for anything as specific as that. In the 18th century there were still only two Departments of State: the Northern Department and Southern Department. The Northern Department handled domestic affairs for Scotland and Northern England, and foreign relations with the Protestant nations of Northern Europe. The Southern Department (considered the senior one) handled domestic affairs for Southern England and Ireland, colonial affairs, and foreign relations with the entire rest of the world. This would not change until Pitt the Younger's time, when these were more reasonably reorganised to group domestic affairs for the whole country together into the Home Office and everything else into the Foreign and Colonial Office.

As others have mentioned above, up until the 1760s the British government didn't feel it really had to intervene in the American colonies, and then when it changed its mind there was of course no organisational infrastructure in place to do it in an effective way.

 

[Falecius]

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.

And, on the face of it, creating a massive centralized Imperial Parliament legislating for everything on multiple continents seems extremely unworkable even after the invention of the telegraph, so I imagine that's why it was never brought up.

It REALLY escapes me why. Or, better, I understand the historical reasons, but I fail to see the logical grounds. After all, French Overseas Departments seem to be perfectly happy to be part of France for all intents and purposes even when there's an ocean between them and Paris.
OK, Britain has not currently managed this for the Channel Islands but, really, it's sort of strange in the framework of modern states.
To my Continental mind, it is rather straightforward: your are part of a given country that has a given constitutional framework, then, you take part of that framework. Geography should not matter except as a practicality. But well, I understand that Britain never worked that way.

 

[Thande]

It REALLY escapes me why. Or, better, I understand the historical reasons, but I fail to see the logical grounds. After all, French Overseas Departments seem to be perfectly happy to be part of France for all intents and purposes even when there's an ocean between them and Paris.
OK, Britain has not currently managed this for the Channel Islands but, really, it's sort of strange in the framework of modern states.
To my Continental mind, it is rather straightforward: your are part of a given country that has a given constitutional framework, then, you take part of that framework. Geography should not matter except as a practicality. But well, I understand that Britain never worked that way.

It's because Britain never had the kind of 'national revolution sweeping away, or at least significantly reforming, ancien regime ideas of nationhood' that the Continent did. Britain itself (as opposed to England, Scotland and Ireland) only exists because specific rebel-based problems arose that convinced the government they had to be incorporated more directly in order to better effectively respond to such crises. The 'British Empire' never really existed in any kind of strict legalistic way: it was a bunch of inconsistent private colonial ventures, corporate trade concerns and foreign policy ploys all glued together by some kind of vague royal corporate authority that usually meant little in reality. Though the Empire is gone this is still true today: the Isle of Man and Channel Islands have nothing to do with Britain, except in the sense that San Marino finds it convenient to use Italian currency or whatever for practical grounds, but the British government has no authority there--they are separate feudal entities that just happen to be ruled by the same monarch. The same basic legal principle informs British attitudes to colonialism, as opposed to French-style centralisation (which, to slightly contradict my first sentence, arguably started even under the ancien regime, such as New France being treated as an extraterritorial extension of France itself).

 

[Falecius]

It's because Britain never had the kind of 'national revolution sweeping away, or at least significantly reforming, ancien regime ideas of nationhood' that the Continent did. Britain itself (as opposed to England, Scotland and Ireland) only exists because specific rebel-based problems arose that convinced the government they had to be incorporated more directly in order to better effectively respond to such crises. The 'British Empire' never really existed in any kind of strict legalistic way: it was a bunch of inconsistent private colonial ventures, corporate trade concerns and foreign policy ploys all glued together by some kind of vague royal corporate authority that usually meant little in reality. Though the Empire is gone this is still true today: the Isle of Man and Channel Islands have nothing to do with Britain, except in the sense that San Marino finds it convenient to use Italian currency or whatever for practical grounds, but the British government has no authority there--they are separate feudal entities that just happen to be ruled by the same monarch. The same basic legal principle informs British attitudes to colonialism, as opposed to French-style centralisation (which, to slightly contradict my first sentence, arguably started even under the ancien regime, such as New France being treated as an extraterritorial extension of France itself).

San Marino is not even close to the best example, but I get the gist of it. Still absurd to me, but as long as the British are happy, I am too.

 

[Tyg]

Britain itself (as opposed to England, Scotland and Ireland) only exists because specific rebel-based problems arose that convinced the government they had to be incorporated more directly in order to better effectively respond to such crises.

This seems like a place from which to consider building a British precedent toward colonial integration.

If the 1707 Act of Union allowed for an autonomous Scottish parliament/assembly inferior in authority to the parliament of the whole union in London, could that example offer some practiced solutions to disputes over colonial autonomy and representation?

 

[BlondieBC]

Given the costs of defense for the colonies, could the foundation for a more coherent military system be established in the same time frame? Even just a semi-formal integration of colonial militia with regulars in the region that had the individual colonies directly shouldering a financial burden of defense prior to/during the next war(s) with France or local/regional native Americans would be a useful precedent to build on.

I think so. Two of the big hang ups were formal Red Coat commissions and wanting to use the Red Coat discipline manual. These cause a lot of friction in the French and Indian War. I don't think the discipline manual was ever used. And initially, any commission Red Coat officer outranked any colonial officer. So LT gave orders to Generals. This was quickly changed to the Red Coat had seniority over a colonial of the same rank. These commission would have been highly coveted by colonials, sort of viewed as almost minor nobility.

We could do a dramatic POD around the French and Indian war, but lets go gradual to match previous POD.

1) 1720: As a part of the compromise for Vice Governor, Virginia agrees to raise and maintain one regiment per British Army TOE. So the Crown gives up a little power but gains a little extra forces to used. Paid for by Virginia taxes. Regiment maybe be too big, but some size military formation. Officer are Colonial.

2) 1740: These Virginian going over seas take honor guard platoon of Virginians with them. Say 3 platoons go with three officers to same location. Say the three future governors candidates get LT commissions in British Army (Crown Commissions). I guess in this scenario, there would be a specific location they all went to. Since Virginia was a slave state, let us make it some African Slave port that sends slaves to Virginia.

3) By 1755, it has evolved that this regiment is the Royal Virginia regiment of 4 battalions. Most of one Battalion is permanently stationed in Africa. The rest in Virginia. For the officers that spend 2 years in Africa, they get the Royal commission. Maybe for NCO if this matters. For other officers in this regiment, they hold "royal" colonial commissions that make the junior in seniority. There may be other regiments in the Virginia militia, and there rank is one rank lower and junior. So say a Crown captain outranks a "plain" colonial Major.

4) Some future war before 1810, the Crown will need more troops. Part of this compromise is making the whole regiment crown commissions permanently. The regiment goes and fights for battle of New Orleans and for French Islands in North America. Maybe some other regiments get the same treatment as a part of deal to make them deployable. A simple rule has developed. Get Crown Commission, can be called to fight for crown in far away lands. Get Virginia militia, only fight locally. All paid for by Virginia which over time will get something in return from Crown such as maybe MP or more MP. It is also easy way to create Earls in wars, if you think this would be wanted in Virginia.

 

[Elfwine]

Britain didn't have a department for anything as specific as that. In the 18th century there were still only two Departments of State: the Northern Department and Southern Department. The Northern Department handled domestic affairs for Scotland and Northern England, and foreign relations with the Protestant nations of Northern Europe. The Southern Department (considered the senior one) handled domestic affairs for Southern England and Ireland, colonial affairs, and foreign relations with the entire rest of the world. This would not change until Pitt the Younger's time, when these were more reasonably reorganised to group domestic affairs for the whole country together into the Home Office and everything else into the Foreign and Colonial Office.

As others have mentioned above, up until the 1760s the British government didn't feel it really had to intervene in the American colonies, and then when it changed its mind there was of course no organisational infrastructure in place to do it in an effective way.

Yeah, but it would have been a sensible idea on annexing Canada to take a long and hard look on if there should be something done about that, instead of continuing with the glorious but also wooded-headed tradition known as "muddling through".

It's understandable in some respects, but this is the sort of decision that leads to OTL's failures, not OTL's successes.

 

[Socrates]

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.

They refused to accept parliament's rulings because the impression they got from parliament was that parliament wasn't willing to compromise. A parliament that seems to be making concessions will be a different story.

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 was stating their preferred position. Parliament responded by stating that its position was that parliament could do whatever the fuck it wanted. If parliament had instead come back with "well, fair point, let's give you representation in parliament", you have the basis for negotiation. As I said, direct rule clearly isn't going to work, but representation plus some "devolved" sovereignty to local assemblies is feasible.

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.

Ben Franklin isn't entirely representative of the American position, but, as the guy used by various colonies to negotiate with London, he's certainly a lot more representative than an anonymous grass roots vandalism group.

 

[Socrates]

I gather that the Revolution was partly about what was perceived as revoking part of it in the aftermath of the SYW... I'm sure there are some contemporary comments to that effect.

Indeed, this was a huge part of it. They felt they had been left in benign neglect, and now London was paying attention and wanted to force them to be another Ireland. Another, often neglected, part of it, is that when George III came to power, various reforms were taken to break the power of the Whig magnates in parliament and replace their patronage with that of the Crown. Many feared the glorious revolution was being reversed. (It turned out not to be the case incidentally, as the voting public became increasingly Whiggish, meaning that with all the patronage in the world, George III couldn't form Tory governments after North fell. The next "Tory" was Pitt the Younger, who was a completely different breed from the Tories of North, Bute etc.

 

[Thande]

This seems like a place from which to consider building a British precedent toward colonial integration.

If the 1707 Act of Union allowed for an autonomous Scottish parliament/assembly inferior in authority to the parliament of the whole union in London, could that example offer some practiced solutions to disputes over colonial autonomy and representation?

That wouldn't have been done for several reasons. To some extent you're backdating modern attitudes. Scotland in 1707 really didn't care about their parliament: indeed under the Stuarts they had been the ones pushing for a Union that would see their parliament abolished and merged into the one in London, and it had been the English who had been wary about it. Scotland had a far higher property requirement for voting than England and their parliament was perceived as a largely powerless rubberstamp, so even with the very restricted franchise, still only 10% of Scots eligible to vote turned out to do so in a typical election. While it is wrong to suggest that all Scots were happy with the Act of Union, the constitutional idealists certainly liked it because bizarrely, even though Scottish MPs were a minority in the new combined Parliament, voters still had more influence over policy than they had before as that Parliament had actual power and the English franchise was extended to Scotland.

The point of the Union was to ensure Scotland could not end up with a different royal succession to England (remember this is after the Glorious Revolution overthrew James II) so the government would not want any ambiguity whatsoever about this by setting up some local assembly. Besides, at the time it was thought that these things could run themselves (see below).

Yeah, but it would have been a sensible idea on annexing Canada to take a long and hard look on if there should be something done about that, instead of continuing with the glorious but also wooded-headed tradition known as "muddling through".

It's understandable in some respects, but this is the sort of decision that leads to OTL's failures, not OTL's successes.

But this is simply not how British governments have ever thought. It is the philosophy of English liberty, what Niall Ferguson (putting a rather anachronous modern political spin on it that leaves a bad taste in the mouth, but still) refers to as 'the nightwatchman state'. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Don't interfere with things that aren't obviously failing: if you do so you could make it worse, and then you end up taking the responsibility for things that were never your fault to start with. It was the arrogance of the late 19th century, to think that this Empire we had blundered into having could be dictated to in such a way, that ultimately doomed it; and that was history repeating itself after the failures of the American Revolutionary War we are referring to. It is interference that led to failures, not indifference.

 

[Elfwine]

They refused to accept parliament's rulings because the impression they got from parliament was that parliament wasn't willing to compromise. A parliament that seems to be making concessions will be a different story.

Concessions and compromise are two very different things.

And the colonial insistence on the former is why we're having this discussion and not "What if the American colonists were more unruly in the 1760s and 1770s?"

See below on compromise.

That was stating their preferred position. Parliament responded by stating that its position was that parliament could do whatever the fuck it wanted. If parliament had instead come back with "well, fair point, let's give you representation in parliament", you have the basis for negotiation. As I said, direct rule clearly isn't going to work, but representation plus some "devolved" sovereignty to local assemblies is feasible.

No, you don't have basis for negotiation, because the colonists are completely rejecting taxation by Parliament and declaring representation impractical. This is not a matter of Parliament ignoring a colonial request for a mutually acceptable agreement, this is Parliament being told by the colonists that they want 100% acceptance of and only of their terms.

If the colonists hadn't done that bit about declaring representation "impractical", and had made their argument in terms of "we will accept this if and only if we receive representation", that would be one thing. When "No taxation without representation" really means "no taxation and we don't care about representation except as something to claim we're being wronged over", Parliament is without a position to find mutually acceptable terms on.

And Parliament did not say that it could do whatever the fuck it wanted. There's a huge difference between Parliament insisting on its authority to pass laws "in all cases whatsoever" (to use Pitt's language) and "in any manner in which it sees fit".

So here's my challenge for you. How do you get the colonial position to be "Can we reach an agreement?" and not "Will you accept our demands?"

Ben Franklin isn't entirely representative of the American position, but, as the guy used by various colonies to negotiate with London, he's certainly a lot more representative than an anonymous grass roots vandalism group.

Burning the Gaspee, to pick the first blatant example I can think of, is well beyond vandalism into - by 18th century definitions - arguably treason ( the attack being tantamount to an attack on the crown).

And I would dispute that Franklin is more representative at this point - http://www.history.com/topics/benjamin-franklin doesn't mention him serving as a (specifically/formally chosen) representative of American feelings on this issue.

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/benjamin-franklin-trips-to-england.html this mentions him as a representative, but not how formal it was.

And if we're treating the Sons of Liberty as not 'official" enough, I do think we need more than de facto status.

 

[Thande]

Indeed, this was a huge part of it. They felt they had been left in benign neglect, and now London was paying attention and wanted to force them to be another Ireland.

Er, no: Ireland was fully independent in 1776. The policy towards Ireland was pretty much the same as to the American colonies; the only difference was that it was malign neglect rather than benign neglect, because it was 'let the Protestant ruling classes do whatever they want to the Catholic majority unless something big happens where we have to intervene'.

 

[Elfwine]

Er, no: Ireland was fully independent in 1776. The policy towards Ireland was pretty much the same as to the American colonies; the only difference was that it was malign neglect rather than benign neglect, because it was 'let the Protestant ruling classes do whatever they want to the Catholic majority unless something big happens where we have to intervene'.

Makes one wonder how much the Americans who feared the colonies turning into "another Ireland" understood about British politics and the British system in general.

It seems like neither side actually understood how the other side worked.

 

[Socrates]

I've mentioned before that an interesting scenario might be an America analogous to South Africa: the cis-Appalachian colonies remain loyal to Britain and obey the Proclamation (obviously, in exchange for concessions elsewhere), but the Daniel Boone types and the republican idealists decide to go off and illegally start their own independent settler entities in the American interior, like the Boer republics in South Africa. These republics would be fighting the native Indians on a more even level, again like the Boers vs the Africans, with the colonial governments indifferent or hostile (at least officially), as opposed to the state support for American settlers in OTL.

It's a tantalising idea, but probably not very likely. The Boers were frontier farming types that were quite capable of defending themselves. The bulk of the discontents in the American colonies were urban New England merchants. They'd get skinned alive quite quickly.

 

[Socrates]

Er, no: Ireland was fully independent in 1776. The policy towards Ireland was pretty much the same as to the American colonies; the only difference was that it was malign neglect rather than benign neglect, because it was 'let the Protestant ruling classes do whatever they want to the Catholic majority unless something big happens where we have to intervene'.

I beg to differ. The Irish parliament was legislated to be subservient to the British parliament until 1782, and every law had to be approved by the British Privy Council. It was also being held back economically by being on the wrong side of a mercantilist system that favoured Britain. You may wish to read up on the career of Henry Grattan.