Subject: A British/American colonies WI Date: 28 Feb 2001 22:58:22 GMT From: witmergreen@aol.comNOSPAM (Steven Witmer) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if What if King George III and Parliament had been more receptive to colonial demands, and in response created seats in Parliament (at least the House of Commons), and loosened up enforcement of the Navigation Acts somewhat? This would remove the steam from the "No Taxation Without Representation" crowd, and also ease the complaints of the seagoing merchants. Would this be enough to avoid the Revolution? If so, what would the results be? If not, is there a POD no earlier than 1770 in which the war could be avoided, and what would that POD be? Steven Witmer Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:11:10 -0000 From: "richard.williams3" Organization: ntlworld News Service Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Steven Witmer wrote in message news:20010228175822.05914.00000135@ng-fr1.aol.com... > What if King George III and Parliament had been more receptive to colonial > demands, and in response created seats in Parliament (at least the House of > Commons), and loosened up enforcement of the Navigation Acts somewhat? This > would remove the steam from the "No Taxation Without Representation" crowd, and > also ease the complaints of the seagoing merchants. Would this be enough to > avoid the Revolution? If so, what would the results be? If not, is there a > POD no earlier than 1770 in which the war could be avoided, and what would that > POD be? > I have a vague memory (i.e. no cites) that this plan of offering seats at Westminster was actually discussed, but rejected by the Americans, precisely because it would take the steam out of the "No Taxation Without Representation" argument, but without changing anything as the handful of American MPs could never hope to win any crucial votes. If this is so, you probably need a different POD, or at least a way of making the Americans more receptive to the argument. RPW Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:48:01 -0600 From: "Doug Hoff" Organization: SBC Internet Services Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 "richard.williams3" wrote in message news:Wyfn6.1343$DS.167346@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com... > > Steven Witmer wrote in message > news:20010228175822.05914.00000135@ng-fr1.aol.com... > > What if King George III and Parliament had been more receptive to colonial > > demands, and in response created seats in Parliament (at least the House > of > > Commons), and loosened up enforcement of the Navigation Acts somewhat? > This > > would remove the steam from the "No Taxation Without Representation" > crowd, and > > also ease the complaints of the seagoing merchants. Would this be enough > to > > avoid the Revolution? If so, what would the results be? If not, is there > a > > POD no earlier than 1770 in which the war could be avoided, and what would > that > > POD be? > > > I have a vague memory (i.e. no cites) that this plan of offering seats at > Westminster was actually discussed, but rejected by the Americans, precisely > because it would take the steam out of the "No Taxation Without > Representation" argument, but without changing anything as the handful of > American MPs could never hope to win any crucial votes. If this is so, you > probably need a different POD, or at least a way of making the Americans > more receptive to the argument. > In modern terms, what the American colonists wanted was 'Home Rule.' Just as a few seats in Parliament did not satisfy the Irish, it would not satisfy the Americans. There are a couple of ways to at least postpone the AmRev. The most plausible is to get Parliament to stop tweaking the Colonist's delicate Constitutional sensitivities. In _principle_ what the Colonists wanted was for Parliament to acknowledge the colonial legislatures as (for the most part) co-equal legislative bodies. In practice, if the British govt had not pushed the issue with new revenue measures, it likely never would have come to blows. There was a point of no return - after the Colonists repeatedly defied Parliamentary edicts - in which it became a matter of principle for both sides. Parliament was not going to back down from asserting its (hard-won) supremacy, and the colonists were not going to stop pushing until Parliament acknowledged their power. The crisis needs to be headed off at an early juncture, where Parliament could say: "Colonists, if you pay for your defense (which you can accomplish through a well-supported militia rather than garrisons of redcoats) we will pass no new revenue measures." (Without abrogating Parliament's _right_ to tax.) The Colonists say: "OK, we are cool with that." (Without pushing the issue of Parliamentary supremacy.) Things cool off, and both sides work out a modus viviendi of 'dont ask, dont tell' on the taxation issue. At some point, twenty or thirty years down the road, it is formalized. -- ------------------- Doug www.althist.com Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:59:24 -0600 From: Bucky Rea Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users, Inc. Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Doug Hoff wrote: > There are a couple of ways to at least postpone the AmRev. > The crisis needs to be headed off at an early juncture, where > Parliament could say: "Colonists, if you pay for your defense > (which you can accomplish through a well-supported militia > rather than garrisons of redcoats) we will pass no new revenue > measures." (Without abrogating Parliament's _right_ to tax.) > The Colonists say: "OK, we are cool with that." (Without > pushing the issue of Parliamentary supremacy.) Things cool > off, and both sides work out a modus viviendi Something substantially similar to this _did_ happen in the 1760s after the first few rounds of Parliamentary assertions starting in 1763. The lag time between the resolution of the Stamp Act (and its assorted contemporary acts) and the Boston Massacre is a couple of years. Some cynics have suggested the aggitation that culminated in Crispus Attucks & company making like the Palestinian intifada (with similar results) was the work of Sons of Liberty types concerned that there wasn't enough conflict going on between the demos and the crown. Another lag ensued after the Massacre got folks shook up & parliament for at least a year didn't pass new taxes. But again the cool-down didn't last, finally leading to a slightly smarter series of protests over tea in New York, Providence, and one other place I don't recall right off. The cool-down strategy was tried and shown to be of limited value, I think. The radical whigs setting the agenda in the colonies were, as the French say, cruisin' for a bruisin', and the Chill Out Party was not likely to contain them or their rabble rousing ilk for very long. Essentially, the American body politic held with it an appetite and a market demand for radical aggitation, so there were bound to be some politicians out there willing to enter the market and supply that commodity. Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 20:35:32 +1100 From: Sydney Webb Organization: Webb Family Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Doug Hoff wrote: > The crisis needs to > be headed off at an early juncture, where Parliament could say: "Colonists, > if you pay for your defense (which you can accomplish through a > well-supported militia rather than garrisons of redcoats) we will pass no > new revenue measures." Doug, I just love your phrase "well-supported militia". At the risk of thread drift I wonder if it could have shown up at later points in American history. F'rex WI a *2nd Amendment that read: A well-supported militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. Would this make any difference to post-1791 history? - Syd Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 21:48:21 +0000 From: Pete Barrett Organization: A Beeb User Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:48:01 -0600, "Doug Hoff" wrote: >The crisis needs to >be headed off at an early juncture, where Parliament could say: "Colonists, >if you pay for your defense (which you can accomplish through a >well-supported militia rather than garrisons of redcoats) we will pass no >new revenue measures." (Without abrogating Parliament's _right_ to tax.) >The Colonists say: "OK, we are cool with that." (Without pushing the issue >of Parliamentary supremacy.) Things cool off, and both sides work out a >modus viviendi of 'dont ask, dont tell' on the taxation issue. At some >point, twenty or thirty years down the road, it is formalized. > Problem - the British wanted to keep garrisons in the colonies not simply to protect the colonists, but to prevent the colonists from trampling all over the natives. A colonial militia will do the first (particularly after the French are no longer a threat), but is more likely to help than prevent colonial encroachments on native territory. Pete Barrett Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: 1 Mar 2001 19:01:13 GMT From: kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 In article , richard.williams3@ntlworld.com (richard.williams3) wrote: > or at least a way of making the Americans > more receptive to the argument. Well how about in addition allowing the Americans some members of the Privy Council. This still had considerable influence in the 18 th Century. Ken Young kenney@cix.co.uk Maternity is a matter of fact Paternity is a matter of opinion Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: 1 Mar 2001 19:20:59 GMT From: tomm@tardis.ed.ac.uk (Thomas McKinnell) Organization: The Tardis Project Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 One possibility that occured to me would be to create an 'american parliament', in much the same way that the Irish had one (at least later on in the 18th Century- Arthur Wellesley was one, I believe). Would that have been enough to appease the colonists? Tom In article , richard.williams3 wrote: > >Steven Witmer wrote in message >news:20010228175822.05914.00000135@ng-fr1.aol.com... >> What if King George III and Parliament had been more receptive to colonial >> demands, and in response created seats in Parliament (at least the House >of >> Commons), and loosened up enforcement of the Navigation Acts somewhat? >This >> would remove the steam from the "No Taxation Without Representation" >crowd, and >> also ease the complaints of the seagoing merchants. Would this be enough >to >> avoid the Revolution? If so, what would the results be? If not, is there >a >> POD no earlier than 1770 in which the war could be avoided, and what would >that >> POD be? >> >I have a vague memory (i.e. no cites) that this plan of offering seats at >Westminster was actually discussed, but rejected by the Americans, precisely >because it would take the steam out of the "No Taxation Without >Representation" argument, but without changing anything as the handful of >American MPs could never hope to win any crucial votes. If this is so, you >probably need a different POD, or at least a way of making the Americans >more receptive to the argument. > >RPW > > Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 21:48:21 +0000 From: Pete Barrett Organization: A Beeb User Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On 1 Mar 2001 19:20:59 GMT, tomm@tardis.ed.ac.uk (Thomas McKinnell) wrote: >One possibility that occured to me would be to create an 'american >parliament', in much the same way that the Irish had one (at least >later on in the 18th Century- Arthur Wellesley was one, I believe). > >Would that have been enough to appease the colonists? > > They wouldn't have wanted a parliament like the Irish one! Sellar and Yeatman put it well ("the Irish could have a Parliament of their own, but the English were to pass all the Acts in it"). Pete Barrett Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: 02 Mar 2001 03:21:37 GMT From: joatsimeon@aol.com (JoatSimeon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 One basic cause of the conflict was that the colonists had been cut off from British political developments for a century, and didn't really understand how the British government worked any more. They were still approaching it with 17th-century assumptions -- 17th century Country Party/Whig assumptions at that. Eg., they thought that the King was still the effective executive power by virtue of his hereditary office. In fact, Parliament had long since assumed the executive as well as legislative authority; there was no "separation of powers" in the British Constitution as it actually operated in the 1770's. What political power George III had was due to his success as a "royal politician", leading his own faction _in Parliament_. When the "King's Friends" fell after Yorktown, all George's political authority went with it. -- S.M. Stirling Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 23:08:21 +0000 From: Pete Barrett Organization: A Beeb User Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On 02 Mar 2001 03:21:37 GMT, joatsimeon@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote: >One basic cause of the conflict was that the colonists had been cut off from >British political developments for a century, and didn't really understand how >the British government worked any more. > >They were still approaching it with 17th-century assumptions -- 17th century >Country Party/Whig assumptions at that. > >Eg., they thought that the King was still the effective executive power by >virtue of his hereditary office. > >In fact, Parliament had long since assumed the executive as well as legislative >authority; there was no "separation of powers" in the British Constitution as >it actually operated in the 1770's. > >What political power George III had was due to his success as a "royal >politician", leading his own faction _in Parliament_. When the "King's >Friends" fell after Yorktown, all George's political authority went with it. That's a very shrewd assessment, and it leads to another take on this sort of question. When we debate the effects of a failed American Revolution, we usually focus on the effects on America, and on the development of the British Empire, but I've never seen a thread focus on what would happen to political developments in Britain itself (*someone's* mentioned it, I'm sure, but I either didn't see it or have forgotten). George was trying to re-establish the authority of the Crown. If the American Revolution fails, or fizzles out into a settlement, then the King's Party doesn't fall, and George has perhaps another ten years of real power. Is this (given that in time he will go mad and that power will be exercised by the Prince Regent) enough to establish a tradition of much stronger royal powers than in OTL? And if it did, would that mean that the British constitution (as being much closer to an OTL 19th century European 'constitutional monarchy' than the OTL British system) is more fragile, and likely to succumb to a revolution against the unpopular monarchs George IV and William IV? Pete Barrett Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: 03 Mar 2001 01:15:07 GMT From: joatsimeon@aol.com (JoatSimeon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Pete Barrett > If the American Revolution fails, or fizzles out into a settlement, then the King's Party doesn't fall, and George has perhaps another ten years of real power. Is this (given that in time he will go mad and that power will be exercised by the Prince Regent) enough to establish a tradition of much stronger royal powers than in OTL? -- I doubt it. Parliamentary coalitions in 18th-century Britain were inherently unstable, due to the fact that they were based on patronage and that there just wasn't enough patronage to go around. Add in that George III was about to go barking mad in a rather spectacular fashion, and that the Prince Regent was lazy, eccentric and dissolute -- tho' intelligent and a man of taste -- and I doubt the "King's Friends" had much future. Given someone healthy and very smart in George III's position, with a healthy and smart and long-lived heir, it might happen. Fortunately, the genetic odds were against that, when we're talking about the Hanoverians. They just didn't produce many impressive individuals. -- S.M. Stirling Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: 03 Mar 2001 15:15:26 GMT From: mwstone@aol.com (mike stone) Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >From: joatsimeon@aol.com (JoatSimeon) >Add in that George III was about to go barking mad in a rather spectacular >fashion, and that the Prince Regent was lazy, eccentric and dissolute -- tho' >intelligent and a man of taste -- and I doubt the "King's Friends" had much >future. > >Given someone healthy and very smart in George III's position, with a healthy >and smart and long-lived heir, it might happen. The best bet is perhaps a variation on one the "King Frederick" thread already going. Let George II's marriage be childless, as was Charles II's, and in 1760 you get Frederick the Great as King of England, 1760-1786. Main problem is that his heirs are nothing to write home about, but if they inhrited a strong position, they could probably hold it This has other side-effects. It very likely means Pitt staying on at least a few years longer, which probably means a much more severe peace treaty. In particular, Cuba may well stay British, with possible impact on the American situation -- Mike Stone - Peterborough England "The English people are like the English beer. Froth on top, dregs at the bottom, the middle excellent" - Voltaire Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: 02 Mar 2001 04:11:03 GMT From: witmergreen@aol.comNOSPAM (Steven Witmer) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >They were still approaching it with 17th-century assumptions -- 17th century >Country Party/Whig assumptions at that. > >Eg., they thought that the King was still the effective executive power by >virtue of his hereditary office. Were they really _that_ naive, though? There was immigration going strong up to the Revolution, so there would have been recent immigrants familiar with the goings-on in England. And there would have been merchants and other businessmen keeping tabs on relevant trade-related political events and other important news, too. So the colonies had access to the information that would have connected them with the reality of the situation. Steven Witmer Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: 02 Mar 2001 06:56:18 GMT From: joatsimeon@aol.com (JoatSimeon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Steven Witmer > So the colonies had access to the information that would have connected them with the reality of the situation. -- yeah, but not enough to really "hit home". For that matter, most Brits outside the "political nation" didn't really understand the reduced role of the Crown, either. Surveys indicated that as late as the 20th century, many still believed the monarch actually ruled. Furthermore, to a superficial observer it could look like George III was running the place the way a King traditionally did. The fact that he'd done it by lining up a majority faction in Parliament and acting, effectively, as his own Prime Minister was harder to spot. -- S.M. Stirling Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 09:10:59 -0600 From: Keith Morrison Organization: NTNet Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Steven Witmer wrote: > > >They were still approaching it with 17th-century assumptions -- 17th century > >Country Party/Whig assumptions at that. > > > >Eg., they thought that the King was still the effective executive power by > >virtue of his hereditary office. > > Were they really _that_ naive, though? There was immigration going strong up > to the Revolution, so there would have been recent immigrants familiar with the > goings-on in England. And there would have been merchants and other > businessmen keeping tabs on relevant trade-related political events and other > important news, too. So the colonies had access to the information that would > have connected them with the reality of the situation. There's a difference between knowing something and understanding it. This newsgroup provides a good example. The US and Canada are as interconnected as two nations throughout history perhaps ever have been, and yet you'll frequently see disagreements between citizens of the two over what something in one country or the other means. -- Keith Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: 02 Mar 2001 03:27:21 GMT From: joatsimeon@aol.com (JoatSimeon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 And the 17th-century Whig/Country party assumptions that the American rebels were using were primed to prevent any form of effective government, and to view any government action through a paranoid screen which scented "conspiracies against our liberties" whether they were there or not. The British ministries of the time, OTOH, were concerned mostly with strictly practical matters. First and foremost, they wanted to recoup some, although not all, of the expenditures made in the colonies. Britain was the most highly taxed country in the world at the time, and America the least; and much of the load of British taxation went to pay war debts incurred for the benefit of, and at the behest of, the American colonists. It was Colonial land-speculators and pioneers who'd clashed with the French in the interior -- a certain G. Washington of the Virginia militia comes to mind. And it was colonial infringement on Indian lands that had started Pontiac's Rebellion in 1763, an expensive disaster only put down with British troops and funds. If every tax the North ministry proposed had been collected in full, then doubled and redoubled and doubled again: a) the British government would still have been spending more money in the colonies that it took in, and spending it in hard gold at that, and; b) Americans would _still_ have been paying barely 5% of what Englishmen were, and would _still_ have been the mostly lightly taxed people in the world. Time out for laughter and applause: besides reducing the per-capita income in the new US to a bare 60% of what it had been in 1775 (and it didn't recover to the 1775 level until the 1820's), the war and independence resulted in far higher taxes than the North ministry had ever dreamed of collecting. -- S.M. Stirling Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 23:53:30 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 JoatSimeon wrote: > Britain was the most highly taxed country in the world at the time, and America > the least; and much of the load of British taxation went to pay war debts > incurred for the benefit of, and at the behest of, the American colonists. Some. Not "much", and certainly not "most". The war in North America was a sideshow. Britain never had large numbers of regular troops there. Most British war debt had jack to do with America; subsidies to European allies alone sucked up much more money than the cost of operations in the 13 colonies. > Time out for laughter and applause: besides reducing the per-capita income in > the new US to a bare 60% of what it had been in 1775 (and it didn't recover to > the 1775 level until the 1820's), You've said this before. Could you please give us a cite? And if American per capita income really took such a hit, why were thousands of Brits still emigrating to the newly independent colonies every year throughout the 1790s and early 1800s? Doug M. Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: 02 Mar 2001 07:13:12 GMT From: joatsimeon@aol.com (JoatSimeon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Douglas Muir >The war in North America was a sideshow. -- the war started in North America; nor was it possible to fight France in one place and not another. Hence the 7 Years War became, in effect, the First World War. But it _started_ in the Ohio Valley. Note that at the end of the war, Britain gave back valuable Carribean islands to keep Canada, which was of much less value to the Mother Country; that was done to secure the borders of the American colonies. >You've said this [40% drop in income] before. Could you please give us a cite? -- sure. McCusker & Menard, THE ECONOMY OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA, 1607-1783, and vol THE OXFORD ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, vol. I, "The Colonial Era". Essentially, the Old Colonial System acted on the whole to transfer income from British consumers to American producers. Sometimes directly -- the subsidies to indigo producers -- but mostly by furnishing well-heeled British and Imperial markets for American produce, enabling them to buy British goods. And British manufactured goods were the cheapest and best in the world. This was very significant. Eg., 1/3 of all British merchant shipping was American built, and over a quarter American-owned; Americans counted as "British" under the provisions of the Navigation Acts, on an absolutely equal basis. After the war and independence, there was a critical loss of markets in the remaining British colonies (the West Indies were very important) and of "invisible" shipping and trading profits from participation in the Imperial system. Eg., the indigo industry vanished completely, shipbuilding was hard hit, and the iron smelting industry took such a hit that it required 100 years to recover its relative position. In 1775, America produced more iron than Britain; it wasn't until the 1880's that that would become true again. >And if American per capita income really took such a hit, why were thousands of Brits still emigrating to the newly independent colonies every year throughout the 1790s and early 1800s? -- different income distribution, in both places. British incomes were rising smartly with the early phases of the Industrial Revolution, but were extremely unevenly distributed -- 350 men owned over 1/3 of all the land in the British Isles, and 4000 interrelated families owned effectively every square inch -- and things were also changing fast, as growth wrenched and twisted the traditional economy. That meant that as some rose, others fell. It was a great time to be British, if you were a landlord, or a big tenant farmer with capital for "improving" methods, or a merchant, or an entrepreneur in one of the rising trades like cotton textiles or coal-smelted iron. If you were a small farmer, or a farm laborer, or in a town with a declining economic base, or for that matter for most wage earners, things sucked. Bad, and getting worse. Even worse than that, if you were Irish, of course. The fall in American incomes hit the export trades very hard; tobacco planters, rice & indigo districts, the trading towns, etc. But the bulk of the (semi-subsistence) farming population continued to eat well and live in "rude comfort" with good prospects as the Indians were slaughtered and driven off, keeping land cheap. And, of course, American (or at least white American) incomes had been a lot higher per capita to start with. Undoubtedly the highest in the world, in 1776, and (slaves not counted) the most equitably distributed; they could fall 40% and still be higher than most even in NW Europe. For example, the average height of native-born white American soldiers in the Continental Line was over 5ft 8 inches -- the same as in WWII. English troops (their genetic counterparts) were over 3 inches shorter, due to a much lower-protein diet. (Incidentally, American heights dropped somewhat throughout the 19th century and recovered to the 1776 level only in the 1920's.) -- S.M. Stirling Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 12:46:04 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 JoatSimeon wrote: > >Douglas Muir [of the Seven Years War]: > > >The war in North America was a sideshow. > > -- the war started in North America; nor was it possible to fight France in one > place and not another. Hence the 7 Years War became, in effect, the First > World War. > > But it _started_ in the Ohio Valley. WWI _started_ in the Balkans. Nevertheless, the Balkan theater was a sideshow; the war was won and lost on the western front. Britain could have lost all the major battles in North America and still have won the war. That's a "sideshow" IMB. > >You've said this [40% drop in income] before. Could you please give us a > cite? > > -- sure. McCusker & Menard, THE ECONOMY OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA, 1607-1783, > and vol THE OXFORD ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, vol. I, "The Colonial > Era". Got 'em on order at my local public library; will get back to you. Thanks. > Essentially, the Old Colonial System acted on the whole to transfer income from > British consumers to American producers. > > Sometimes directly -- the subsidies to indigo producers -- but mostly by > furnishing well-heeled British and Imperial markets for American produce, > enabling them to buy British goods. And British manufactured goods were the > cheapest and best in the world. What happened to British importers of American raw materials and produce during and after the Revolution? Or, in larger terms, what was the Revolution's impact on the /British/ economy? Doug M. Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: 05 Mar 2001 23:44:35 GMT From: joatsimeon@aol.com (JoatSimeon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Douglas Muir >What happened to British importers of American raw materials and produce during and after the Revolution? -- not much. There were temporary disruptions, but after the war the British resumed buying, on rather better terms, those items they wanted. They stopped buying things that had been subsidized, or which were limited to Imperial producers; indigo, naval stores, ship's masts, ships, iron, etc. The net result was that the US lost markets and the British either got things more cheaply elsewhere (indigo) or chose to subsidize other areas still within the Empire (Nova Scotian lumber producers). Particularly until the rise of the short-staple cotton industry (which didn't get going until the late 1790's) the US ended up with a chronic balance-of-payments deficit with Britain and the British Empire. >Or, in larger terms, what was the Revolution's impact on the /British/ economy? -- marginal, once the war itself was over. -- S.M. Stirling Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: 05 Mar 2001 23:52:00 GMT From: coyu@aol.com (Coyu) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 S.M. Stirling wrote: >>Or, in larger terms, what was the Revolution's impact on the /British/ >>economy? > >-- marginal, once the war itself was over. What was the Revolution's impact on the parts of North America that remained British? Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 18:11:22 -0600 From: Keith Morrison Organization: NTNet Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Coyu wrote: > > S.M. Stirling wrote: > > >>Or, in larger terms, what was the Revolution's impact on the /British/ > >>economy? > > > >-- marginal, once the war itself was over. > > What was the Revolution's impact on the parts of North America > that remained British? Pretty good. Halifax quickly became the main British naval base on this side of the North Atlantic. New Brunswick was settled by enough Loyalists that it became a seperate colony from Nova Scotia in 1785. The Eastern Townships were quickly settled and Upper Canada (now lower Ontario) had an upsurge in population as well. Cape Breton started to produce coal, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick lumber (and a very successful ship-building industry), Ontario and Quebec received similar bumps economically. -- Keith Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: 06 Mar 2001 00:22:32 GMT From: joatsimeon@aol.com (JoatSimeon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 > (Coyu) >What was the Revolution's impact on the parts of North America that remained British? -- a massive boost to economic growth. People poured in, and the British government provided lots of capital via military spending, direct subsidy, public works, preferential tariffs, and a program of cash grants to compensate Loyalists for property lost in the former American colonies. Farms were cleared, towns sprang up overnight, sawmills and shipyards were built, etc. The effects were most notable in Canada; it was the period between 1782-1792 which really laid the foundations of the English-speaking Canadian nation. Some of the new settlements floundered -- Sherbourne in Nova Scotia had 10,000 people for a few years, nearly as many as Boston, then disappeared. Most survived and/or flourished; Upper Canada (Ontario-to-be) particularly. -- S.M. Stirling Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 23:08:22 +0000 From: Pete Barrett Organization: A Beeb User Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On 02 Mar 2001 07:13:12 GMT, joatsimeon@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote: > >Note that at the end of the war, Britain gave back valuable Carribean islands >to keep Canada, which was of much less value to the Mother Country; that was >done to secure the borders of the American colonies. > Not what I've heard. As far as I know it was done because the West Indian sugar growers (who had considerable influence in Parliament) didn't want Martinique and Guadeloupe as competitors within the tarrif barrier that the government was erecting around the empire. Which only goes to show that motives are mostly mixed... Pete Barrett Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: 03 Mar 2001 01:31:46 GMT From: joatsimeon@aol.com (JoatSimeon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Pete Barrett > As far as I know it was done because the West Indian sugar growers (who had considerable influence in Parliament) didn't want Martinique and Guadeloupe as competitors within the tarrif barrier that the government was erecting around the empire. -- by 1763, most (tho' not all) of the West India interest had swung around to wanting at least some of the French islands annexed. (or so says the OXFORD HISTORY OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE) Keeping the French islands outside the Imperial tariff wall hadn't worked, and they'd captured the entire European re-export trade in sugar and molasses as well as (clandestinely) much of the North American market. Small note: the British islands exported relatively little molasses -- they made it into expensive, high-quality rum themselves and sold it in America and Europe. The French islands were forbidden to export rum, due to the influence of French brandy producers. Thus they had lots of cheap molasses to offer the mainland smugglers, who brought it back to the distilleries of the colonial ports for manufacture into cheap, low-cost rum or use as a cheap sweetener for poor farmers and slaves. This was a major reason why the mainland colonists resented the attempt to reduce, but actually collect, the hitherto largely ignored duties on molasses. The West India planters had traditionally tried to bar foreign molasses from the mainland colonies altogether, hoping to drive up the cost of mainland provisions/supplies in the French West Indies, and thus increase their rivals' production costs. Like most planters, the French West Indians had little cash -- the molasses-for-fish-and-corn trade enabled them to swap directly. By the 1760's, Jamaica and Barbados had decided it was impossible to actually keep out the French molasses -- the mainland needed it too badly, and they couldn't produce it themselves -- and that so was ruining the French plantations by raids. So they pushed for a much lower tariff on foreign molasses, but one which could be realistically collected instead of ignored. That wouldn't choke off the mainland trade to the French, but it would hinder it. The British decision not to keep Cuba was deeply disliked in the British Carribean islands, btw. Many of the planters there were planning to take up land in Cuba themeselves, or already had, or their relatives had. There was a "gold rush" of slave-traders, planters, merchants, etc., into Havanna after it fell to the British. If the British had kept Cuba, there would probably have been no revolution -- the economic situation would have been entirely different. -- S.M. Stirling Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:37:19 -0600 From: Keith Morrison Organization: NTNet Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Steven Witmer wrote: > > What if King George III and Parliament had been more receptive to colonial > demands, and in response created seats in Parliament (at least the House of > Commons), and loosened up enforcement of the Navigation Acts somewhat? This > would remove the steam from the "No Taxation Without Representation" crowd, and > also ease the complaints of the seagoing merchants. Would this be enough to > avoid the Revolution? If so, what would the results be? If not, is there a > POD no earlier than 1770 in which the war could be avoided, and what would that > POD be? There are numerous ways for the Revolution not to happen. One thing you have to be aware of is that the "No taxation without representation" is a wonderful justification. Many no doubt truly believed it. I would suspect, however, that quite a large segment of the rebellion leaders simply wanted "No taxation" full stop. -- Keith Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 10:50:58 GMT From: thorne.2@osu.edu (Charlie Thorne) Organization: Ohio State University Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 On 28 Feb 2001 22:58:22 GMT, witmergreen@aol.comNOSPAM (Steven Witmer) wrote: >What if King George III and Parliament had been more receptive to colonial >demands, and in response created seats in Parliament (at least the House of >Commons), and loosened up enforcement of the Navigation Acts somewhat? This >would remove the steam from the "No Taxation Without Representation" crowd, and >also ease the complaints of the seagoing merchants. Would this be enough to >avoid the Revolution? If so, what would the results be? If not, is there a >POD no earlier than 1770 in which the war could be avoided, and what would that >POD be? > >Steven Witmer One must remember that the biggest issue in the War was the land West of the Appalachians which was promised to Eastern Colonies and Colonials after the Seven Years War. After the Battle of Saratoga (1778), there was a "Peace" Commission sent to the Colonies to negotiate. The Commission offered everything BUT the Western lands including an offer to negotiate Parliamentary Representation. The Offer was rejected and the War continued. Charlie Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: 03 Mar 2001 01:20:48 GMT From: joatsimeon@aol.com (JoatSimeon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Now, here's one: After the 7 Years War, the King consults his provincial governors, and then hands out a couple of dozen baronetcies and a hundred or so knighthoods to deserving (and influential) colonials. Then he puts forward, after Pontiac's Rebellion, a proposal for a Governor General/Viceroy (proposing an American for the post) and pan-Colonial Assembly and Upper House to handle frontier issues, such as the creation of new colonies in the new trans-Appalachian territories. The new Assembly and G-G would have power to raise troops to defend the frontier and pacify the Indians, and to raise taxes for the same (tho' its main revenue would come from land sales). No taxation (as opposed to pan-Imperial trade regulations) would be imposed save through the Viceroy and Continental Assembly. To fill the Upper House, the Crown will create 3-6 peers per province. As new colonies/provinces are created, so will more peers. Watch the colonial politicians scramble, bite, kick and gouge each other's eyes to get _those_ positions! Lord Adams? Lord Washington? His Grace Franklin? -- S.M. Stirling Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 02:29:12 -0800 From: Conrad Hodson Organization: Oregon Public Networking Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On 3 Mar 2001, JoatSimeon wrote: > Now, here's one: > > After the 7 Years War, the King consults his provincial governors, and then > hands out a couple of dozen baronetcies and a hundred or so knighthoods to > deserving (and influential) colonials. > > Then he puts forward, after Pontiac's Rebellion, a proposal for a Governor > General/Viceroy (proposing an American for the post) and pan-Colonial Assembly > and Upper House to handle frontier issues, such as the creation of new colonies > in the new trans-Appalachian territories. > > The new Assembly and G-G would have power to raise troops to defend the > frontier and pacify the Indians, and to raise taxes for the same (tho' its main > revenue would come from land sales). No taxation (as opposed to pan-Imperial > trade regulations) would be imposed save through the Viceroy and Continental > Assembly. > > To fill the Upper House, the Crown will create 3-6 peers per province. As new > colonies/provinces are created, so will more peers. > Excellent idea. It would probably have derailed the American Revolution. The only problem is, that you have the brains of a William Pitt, and the same would be hard to say for anyone in the Lord North government, or King George's political machine. Largely mindless conservatives; but the ones who _did_ have some grey cells to rub together had a further argument that your proposal would have to overcome: conservative English politicians were defending a status quo based on rotten boroughs. All proposals for American representation ran up against the fact that if Boston got to vote on large-scale tax issues, Manchester would demand the same. It's a neat idea, but damned if I see a scenario that gets there from where they were. A healthier Pitt, maybe? A genius/statesman of a king, of the stature of Henry VII, who would turn the rotten boroughs he'd bought to the cause of overhauling the system? (In other words, a Hanoverian dynasty genius/statesman? Sorry, I guess that's ASB territory.) Conrad Hodson Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: 5 Mar 2001 15:49:41 -0600 From: Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 85,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Conrad Hodson wrote: >On 3 Mar 2001, JoatSimeon wrote: > >> Now, here's one: >> >> After the 7 Years War, the King consults his provincial governors, and then >> hands out a couple of dozen baronetcies and a hundred or so knighthoods to >> deserving (and influential) colonials. >> >> Then he puts forward, after Pontiac's Rebellion, a proposal for a Governor >> General/Viceroy (proposing an American for the post) and pan-Colonial Assembly >> and Upper House to handle frontier issues, such as the creation of new colonies >> in the new trans-Appalachian territories. >> >> The new Assembly and G-G would have power to raise troops to defend the >> frontier and pacify the Indians, and to raise taxes for the same (tho' its main >> revenue would come from land sales). No taxation (as opposed to pan-Imperial >> trade regulations) would be imposed save through the Viceroy and Continental >> Assembly. >> >> To fill the Upper House, the Crown will create 3-6 peers per province. As new >> colonies/provinces are created, so will more peers. >> > >Excellent idea. It would probably have derailed the American >Revolution. The only problem is, that you have the brains of a William >Pitt, and the same would be hard to say for anyone in the Lord North >government, or King George's political machine. Largely mindless >conservatives; but the ones who _did_ have some grey cells to rub together >had a further argument that your proposal would have to >overcome: conservative English politicians were defending a status quo >based on rotten boroughs. All proposals for American representation ran >up against the fact that if Boston got to vote on large-scale tax issues, >Manchester would demand the same. > >It's a neat idea, but damned if I see a scenario that gets there from >where they were. A healthier Pitt, maybe? A genius/statesman of a king, >of the stature of Henry VII, who would turn the rotten boroughs he'd >bought to the cause of overhauling the system? (In other words, a >Hanoverian dynasty genius/statesman? Sorry, I guess that's ASB >territory.) ---Ah, but you do not see the beauty of the scheme. Lord Franklin and his friends would sit in the Lords, not the Commons where there were rotten boroughs to protect. Even better, the North American peerage would be a peerage separate from and inferior to the English, Scots and Irish peerages, such that not every colonial peer would have the right to attend the Lords. Like Irish and Scots peers the Americans would have to elect delegates from among themselves to attend and the English could control the numbers. I think that this plan was well within the intellectual powers of the North regime but sheer snobbery might have scotched it. (The Irish peers would have loved it though - there would finally have been someone lower on the totem pole). > >Conrad Hodson > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: 06 Mar 2001 00:25:51 GMT From: joatsimeon@aol.com (JoatSimeon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Conrad Hodson > conservative English politicians were defending a status quo based on rotten boroughs. -- the proposal was for a pan_colonial_ assembly, not representation in the Imperial parliament. Colonial franchises didn't affect politics in Britain. -- S.M. Stirling Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 20:27:39 +0200 From: Jon Ivars Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On 3 Mar 2001, JoatSimeon wrote: > Then he puts forward, after Pontiac's Rebellion, a proposal for a Governor > General/Viceroy (proposing an American for the post) and pan-Colonial Assembly > and Upper House to handle frontier issues, such as the creation of new colonies > in the new trans-Appalachian territories. Is this assembly below or above the Parliament? Same for the Upper House? The compromises in power sharing that would satisfy each could be pretty tricky to achieve. As for a native Viceroy, I don't recall it was that common in other colonies for a long time. Not sure the King would even seriuosly consider the idea. BTW would the colonies still pay for any troops the King stations there for their defence? That is, troops/militias that were not raised locally? That could solve some of the treaty obligations with regards to protecting Indians from settler encroachment along the frontier (though in my cynical way I suppose those treaties would be broken regularly anyway). Star Captain Jon 'Gauss Bear' Ivars Member of Clan Ghost Bear Visit my Battletech pages at http://www.abo.fi/~jivars/gb.htm Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: 05 Mar 2001 18:41:11 GMT From: joatsimeon@aol.com (JoatSimeon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Jon Ivars >. As for a native Viceroy, I don't recall it was that common in other colonies for a long time. -- several colonies had American-born governors. -- S.M. Stirling Subject: Re: A British/American colonies WI Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 10:57:29 -0600 (CST) From: arviragus888@webtv.net (Keith Churchill) Organization: WebTV Subscriber Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Hi Steven, I think there are two PODs that would accomplish your goal. The Quebec Act gave all of the future Northwest Territory to Canada. If you change that, it might do it. Also IIRC, the First Continental Congress came within one vote of voting for Joseph Galloway's plan of union. If the Quebec Act change came before it and one of the dissenters had western interests, it might persuade him to change his mind. Sincerely yours, Arviragus