WI: Taxation with representation

[Thande]

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.

Indeed. A big problem was that America was producing generations who had never seen Britain and did not really think of themselves as British anymore: people sort of recognised this when Ben Franklin published his famous scientific discoveries, but they didn't follow through on the implications.

It is interesting to contrast some of the varying levels of understanding on both sides. In Britain people who were in power during the Seven Years' War better understood the Americans' position because they had directed military operations there and knew about what sort of attitudes the military had encountered--William Pitt the Elder for instance. Unfortunately these people were in opposition during the time period involved.

In America on the other hand, you had attitudes that ranged from the 1776 New Hampshire rebel constitution, which had a very well-informed grasp of just who was to blame for what the colonies were objecting to, to idiotically ignorant attitudes about how the British constitution worked even from people as intelligent as Thomas Jefferson.

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.

The disparity in numbers might compensate to some extent; one reason it's so interesting is that you could end up with an interior that's a more or less even mix between "Boer" republics and Indian state societies that organised in response to this more muffled threat than OTL, having more time to prepare and learn from it.

 

[Socrates]

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.

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.

They completely rejected taxation by parliament and parliament insisted they could legislate for the colonies in all cases whatsoever. Yet apparently the colonists are utterly uncompromising and would never ever compromise, yet you don't hold parliament (who held all the power!) to the same standard. As I have already quoted, we have historical sources saying the colonists were willing to accept an imperial parliament. They just did not accept the British parliament in it's incarnation of having only MPs from one part of the Empire, as being that imperial parliament.

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".

"Parliament had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America in all cases whatsoever"

That is saying pretty forthrightly that they could do whatever they wanted, no ifs, no buts.

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?"

As stated, you have parliament acknowledge the obvious lack of American input into parliament, and thus either create an imperial parliament (possibly through including American representatives in the Westminster parliament), or accept there are some limits to Westminster's authority over local assemblies: i.e. dual sovereignty.

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.

Franklin never had a formal position but he was openly asked by colonial assemblies to represent them in London, who wanted to remain part of the British Empire. If you really think that is equivalent to the Sons of Liberty position then I don't think we're going to be very productive in our debate.

 

[Tyg]

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.

That the Scots in general gained more political power by wholly abandoning their own parliament is more than a little surprising, but it certainly explains why Scotland didn't care to ask for any legislative autonomy in the Union.

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.

Surely the union of the crowns (and thus succession) was of far greater symbolic and legal importance than any inferior Scottish assembly would have been? But I do see your point, even if it wasn't 'legal', London wouldn't have wanted a pretender to be able to gain the acclaim of a Scottish assembly or sub-parliament, even in theory.

Regardless, is there any other way to give London some practice in managing relations with semi-autonomous assemblies that could later be applied to colonial questions? The Parliament seemed ill-equipped intellectually to grasp the value American colonists ascribed to their assemblies, or even to acknowledge their local authority.

 

[BlondieBC]

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.

True on where the revolution started, but not true of the people who wanted to cross the White/Indian line. They were rural people who knew how to survive. By the time of the revolutionary war, there were both county size areas west of this line of white settlement and white populations living under Indian tribes. Most of the land was simply empty due to disease killing Indians. So Thande is right the UK could simply not send troops west of the line and allow the colonial/Indian relations to develop without British intervention. And you are right that the Urban malcontents will not be looking forward to moving to a rural white area outside of the British Empire, much less to live under Cherokee laws. The people moving out will be the second/third sons of rural farmers looking for their own bit of land. Under Thande scenario, the English must find another solution to the Boston firebrands, but they can largely ignore the whites moving west. Most likely, we get a situation where the large amounts of empty land claims by the Indian tribes is lost to white settlement over the generations, but he Indians keep their core territory. We end up with a Mosaic of settlement where many languages are spoken, much like one finds in eastern Europe before the modern ethnic cleansings.

 

[Socrates]

True on where the revolution started, but not true of the people who wanted to cross the White/Indian line. They were rural people who knew how to survive. By the time of the revolutionary war, there were both county size areas west of this line of white settlement and white populations living under Indian tribes. Most of the land was simply empty due to disease killing Indians. So Thande is right the UK could simply not send troops west of the line and allow the colonial/Indian relations to develop without British intervention. And you are right that the Urban malcontents will not be looking forward to moving to a rural white area outside of the British Empire, much less to live under Cherokee laws. The people moving out will be the second/third sons of rural farmers looking for their own bit of land. Under Thande scenario, the English must find another solution to the Boston firebrands, but they can largely ignore the whites moving west.

Interesting, you've persuaded me.

Most likely, we get a situation where the large amounts of empty land claims by the Indian tribes is lost to white settlement over the generations, but he Indians keep their core territory. We end up with a Mosaic of settlement where many languages are spoken, much like one finds in eastern Europe before the modern ethnic cleansings.

I'm not so sure. This largely happened in our timeline, only the distant imperial power was Washington rather than London. Washington largely only annexed land to the United States proper after the settlers had moved in, established self-government, and petitioned to be annexed in order to get military protection and illegal land claims recognised. I suspect that's what would happen here, only that the settlers will have even more of a free hand in being barbaric to the native tribes due to Westminster being more distant and having more things to deal with.

 

[Faeelin]

I gotta say, I keep rolling my eyes every time the Gaspee comes up, given the tradition of mobs and violence in Georgian England.

 

[Elfwine]

They completely rejected taxation by parliament and parliament insisted they could legislate for the colonies in all cases whatsoever. Yet apparently the colonists are utterly uncompromising and would never ever compromise, yet you don't hold parliament (who held all the power!) to the same standard. As I have already quoted, we have historical sources saying the colonists were willing to accept an imperial parliament. They just did not accept the British parliament in it's incarnation of having only MPs from one part of the Empire, as being that imperial parliament.

If one's position is that the legitimate (being subject to a foreign conqueror is another situation, for instance) and just (the taxes the colonists are being expected to pay are lower than at home and quite a few are lower than the on-the-books-but-underenforced past ones, so claiming heavy taxation is inaccurate) government needs to change what it's doing, then one has to have a position more reasonable than said government for me not to not be at best critical and at worst anti-revolutionary (revolutions are violent and messy things, not to be engaged in without extremely good reason).

So no, I don't hold Parliament to the same standard. The only reason I accept that Parliament should compromise at all here (from the Stamp Act position) is Burkean "This is unworkable, and therefore wrong." - from the standpoint of who is causing the trouble, the blame/credit rests squarely on those who decided to reject being treated as Englishmen were.

"Parliament had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America in all cases whatsoever"

That is saying pretty forthrightly that they could do whatever they wanted, no ifs, no buts.

I disagree. It sounds like a claim to have authority over all matters, not to pass any kind of law they want.

But for discussion's sake, I'd be willing to cede the point on that specific phrase if we can get back to addressing the issue below.

As stated, you have parliament acknowledge the obvious lack of American input into parliament, and thus either create an imperial parliament (possibly through including American representatives in the Westminster parliament), or accept there are some limits to Westminster's authority over local assemblies: i.e. dual sovereignty.

That doesn't address my challenge at all.

How do you make the Americans change their position into something other than "submit to our demands or else" so that some kind of give-and-take is actually possible?

Because when the Stamp Act Congress declares direct representation "impractical", it cuts the ground out from anyone who would add American representatives.

Local assembles having the power meanwhile brings up the question of what power the colonists are willing to accept Parliament having over them, and "as little as possible" is not a reasonable answer any more than "As much as you want, just use lube." would be.

Franklin never had a formal position but he was openly asked by colonial assemblies to represent them in London, who wanted to remain part of the British Empire. If you really think that is equivalent to the Sons of Liberty position then I don't think we're going to be very productive in our debate.

Since you can only acknowledge the Sons of Liberty by whitewashing them and downplaying them, any attempts to be productive when they're involved is thrown out the window.


http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h635.html

http://www.ushistory.org/us/10b.asp

Faeelin:
I know that you're an Anglophobe and probably anti-authority, but if you think doing that sort of thing is no grounds for the government to be displeased by the guilty party, I don't think it's possible to discuss anything more political than Benedict Arnold's lack of seniority as a major general in the Continental Army.

 

[BlondieBC]

Interesting, you've persuaded me.

I'm not so sure. This largely happened in our timeline, only the distant imperial power was Washington rather than London. Washington largely only annexed land to the United States proper after the settlers had moved in, established self-government, and petitioned to be annexed in order to get military protection and illegal land claims recognised. I suspect that's what would happen here, only that the settlers will have even more of a free hand in being barbaric to the native tribes due to Westminster being more distant and having more things to deal with.

Thanks, it is rare to persuade someone on this forum.

I just know a lot about this area since it is my ancestors. Twenty years ago, I believed my ancestors arrived some time before the civil war and I was 12-25% native American. With family research and some DNA work, I now know that my ancestors were all here by 1750 and despite the dark skin (Native American skin tones) in some family members, I am 100% European. The reason I thought I was substantial Native America was both skin tone, the claim we were "Black Dutch", and the fact some could be found living with the Cherokee. Now since the ones living with Cherokee were Lapplander genetically (look a lot like Cherokee) and Basque/Berber DNA via presumably Irish fishing villages, it makes a lot of sense for them to live with the Cherokee. You did not want to be on the dark side of white living in the coastal slave plantation areas. And since I know my blood line flows in an out of the Cherokee tribe, there must be a good bit of Lapplander in the Cherokee tribe. Based on the information I have, it would appear some time in memorium, a group of Lapplanders moved to Ireland/Western Scotland and setup a fishing village. Another group of Basque/Berber also moved to Eastern Ireland between Dublin and Belfast and setup the same. The two villages must have moved basically to North Carolina in a mass move and stayed largely together between before 1750 to about 1900. It kind of makes sense. The less Anglo you look, the more you are discriminated against, so the more it makes sense to migrate. You have less to lose. The probably landed well before the plantation system, and we pushed out when the more connected Anglo settlers arrived.

I do see you point on even less restraint. You seem to have a scenario where the Virginia militia is given a free hand in clearing natives. And we could just see many more outright massacre campaigns. I was thinking more in terms of the Crown preventing overt Virginia support, so it would be mostly the settlers who went west of the line with some covert Virginian support. I guess it could go either way really with either the same OTL resources and a free hand versus a lot less resources and a free hand.

 

[Socrates]

That doesn't address my challenge at all.

How do you make the Americans change their position into something other than "submit to our demands or else" so that some kind of give-and-take is actually possible?

Because when the Stamp Act Congress declares direct representation "impractical", it cuts the ground out from anyone who would add American representatives.

I disagree. I believe the Stamp Act Congress refers to direct rule and no intermediary, rather than the central parliament plus devolved assemblies (the "Scotland solution"). Plus I don't believe the reference to "impractical" is the totemic, no compromise position you give it. Simply stating your opening preferred position isn't the same as saying what you'd be willing to accept. There are reliable sources that say they would have accepted an imperial parliament that included American representative, and I have provided one source in this thread. Do you have any sources that say they would not have accepted this, other than your own conjecture?

 

[Elfwine]

I disagree. I believe the Stamp Act Congress refers to direct rule and no intermediary, rather than the central parliament plus devolved assemblies (the "Scotland solution"). Plus I don't believe the reference to "impractical" is the totemic, no compromise position you give it. Simply stating your opening preferred position isn't the same as saying what you'd be willing to accept. There are reliable sources that say they would have accepted an imperial parliament that included American representative, and I have provided one source in this thread. Do you have any sources that say they would not have accepted this, other than your own conjecture?

Stating that it is impractical as an opening preferred position itself is rather uncompromising. More to the point, it undermines the idea that the objection is to a lack of representation - which leaves it a matter of "So what do you want?"

Parliament has nothing to compromise with if the American position is a simple "No taxes", which is why I keep insisting on the American position being uncompromising - there's no quo for their quid or vice-versa in that position.

The only thing I see on an Imperial parliament that you mentioned in this thread - and I apologize if I'm overlooking something - is Chatham having a plan, not the SAC.

 

[Socrates]

Stating that it is impractical as an opening preferred position itself is rather uncompromising. More to the point, it undermines the idea that the objection is to a lack of representation - which leaves it a matter of "So what do you want?"

Parliament has nothing to compromise with if the American position is a simple "No taxes", which is why I keep insisting on the American position being uncompromising - there's no quo for their quid or vice-versa in that position.

The only thing I see on an Imperial parliament that you mentioned in this thread - and I apologize if I'm overlooking something - is Chatham having a plan, not the SAC.

I posted a quote from the Enclopedia Brittanica saying the colonials were willing to accept it. As for the "So what do you want?" answer, the response would have been the colonial assemblies as parliamentary equivalents, with loyalty to the Crown. Another example to show that compromise was possible was that the Galloway Plan only lost by one vote in the Continental Congress as late as 1774. This involved a President appointed by the British King, and for all legislation to require assent by the British Parliament. This was during a time when Britain had lost a lot of its standing in American eyes after the responses to the Boston Tea Party had inflamed a lot of opinion. It almost certainly would have passed had something similar been suggested by the British in the 1760s.

 

[Faeelin]

I posted a quote from the Enclopedia Brittanica saying the colonials were willing to accept it. As for the "So what do you want?" answer, the response would have been the colonial assemblies as parliamentary equivalents, with loyalty to the Crown. Another example to show that compromise was possible was that the Galloway Plan only lost by one vote in the Continental Congress as late as 1774.

Minor nitpick: It was tabled, not rejected, by one vote. But I take your point.

http://books.google.com/books?id=e_...6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=galloway plan vote&f=false

 

[Elfwine]

I posted a quote from the Enclopedia Brittanica saying the colonials were willing to accept it. As for the "So what do you want?" answer, the response would have been the colonial assemblies as parliamentary equivalents, with loyalty to the Crown. Another example to show that compromise was possible was that the Galloway Plan only lost by one vote in the Continental Congress as late as 1774. This involved a President appointed by the British King, and for all legislation to require assent by the British Parliament. This was during a time when Britain had lost a lot of its standing in American eyes after the responses to the Boston Tea Party had inflamed a lot of opinion. It almost certainly would have passed had something similar been suggested by the British in the 1760s.

Point, although I wish I knew the dates for that relative to the SAC statement (which I don't know the exact date of).

And "colonial representatives as parliamentary equivalents" is basically "no Parliamentary authority at all", which is not a reasonable position to expect Parliament - as the actual power-that-be - to accept.

Would like to know more on why the Galloway Plan was tabled OTL.

 

[Faeelin]

And "colonial representatives as parliamentary equivalents" is basically "no Parliamentary authority at all", which is not a reasonable position to expect Parliament - as the actual power-that-be - to accept.

Well, as OTL showed, it was, because that's what they got anyway after 8 years of warfare .

 

[Elfwine]

Well, as OTL showed, it was, because that's what they got anyway after 8 years of warfare .

OTL is a triumph of might, not right.

 

[Socrates]

Indeed. A big problem was that America was producing generations who had never seen Britain and did not really think of themselves as British anymore

I disagree with this. They identified as British, they repeatedly pledged loyalty to the crown, they thought their Britishness entitled them to English liberties, they celebrated Guy Fawkes night, they followed fashion from England and would pay extra import the latest British furniture from London, and they explicitly differentiated between their "kin" and "foreign" soldiers in their complaints.