Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 17th, 2012, 04:31 AM   #11

SirOrmondeWinter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,893

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
Here's a couple potential reasons. How much of a role they played, I don't know though:

1. Perhaps they feared that if they gave representation to the American colonists, it might set a precedent where they'd have to give representation to other colonies.

2. Given the vast size of the American colonies, a population explosion could cause colonial representation to dwarf the representation of the mother country. For example, the American population at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War was just under 3 million. The population of Great Britain in 1750 (closest year I could find) was about 6.5 million. That would give Americans a large voice in British government. But the situation gets much worse as time goes by. If America was still a colony today, and if she had representation proportional to her population, Americans would have 5 times the representation that the residents of the British islands would have. In effect, Britain would be an American colony.
Yeah I think that sums it up, it seemed that the American colonies were the place for malcontents in British society (Cromwell was planning to emigrate with his family to America prior to the outbreak of war) and had they been given representation it would have been a massive sea change in British society. The American revolution was in some ways the British revolution transplanted overseas.
Thankfully we learned our lesson with Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc
SirOrmondeWinter is offline  
Remove Ads
Old February 17th, 2012, 05:17 AM   #12
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Minnesota
Posts: 954

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
Cash Cow? Really? The level of taxation was actually much less than in Britain at the time. The taxation was specifically to for the costs of defending the colonies, which the taxes would only cover partially. They were seeking to get away with much less rather than much more. It wasnt unreasonable in the context.

The colonists being represented in Parliament would not have been very large the franchise rules were very limited. So a few representives would not have given the colonies a massive say. It would have been pretty unworkable, given the distance.

No taxation without representation might have been the slogan but I think they didnt want representation. They wanted control of their affairs. I'm pretty sure they had higher taxes after the 'revolution; than before.
You are correct.
I am very partisanly pro-American and pro- Our Founding Fathers and the American Revolution.
That being said -
The bottom line was that the Colonists had already been governing themselves, some of them for over 100 years. They were already "independent."
After the French and Indian War/ the Seven Years War between France and England, the King and Parliament tried to impose new taxes on these self governing people to pay England's massive debts and to support England's armies in North America. The Colonists didn't like it.
It took the incredible arrogance and stupidity of
Townshend_Acts Townshend_Acts
and the House of Lords and the incredible hubris of the Colonists who rejected their "federal government," England, meddling in "their private affairs," their wish to "have their own way," to create the American Revolution.
The Colonists kept on refusing to pay taxes. England kept on giving in and rescinding the taxes.
The "Tea tax" was indeed the last straw for both parties.
England was trying to save the East India Company and wanted to dump their excess tea on the Colonies.
They were selling it for less and taxing it less than it was in England! It would have been much cheaper to buy English tea than it was to smuggle it into America.
The Colonists, full of themselves, preferred to pay the more exorbitant smuggling price than to give into England's "taxation without representation."
I believe they burned one of the ships entirely in Charleston, the Colony of South Carolina. In other ports, they refused to let the ships unload and they were forced to go back to England. In Boston, they only hijacked the ship and dumped it overboard.
This was civil disobedience to the Max and England had to retaliate.
In addition, the Governors of the Colonies, appointed by the Crown, attempted to impose harsh penalties on the Colonists.

It all went to hell when the British attempted to seize the munitions held by these now rebellious and obstinate Colonists in Lexington and Concord.
The Colonists fought and killed some of the official Armed Forces of their Government.
The rebellion had begun.

Then, when the Continental Congress in Philadelphia tried to reason with the King and Parliament and get them to accede that the Colonists had legimate grievances, the obstinate shoe of stupidity went onto the "other foot" and the King refused to even consider dealing with the rebellious rabble who dared to fight against "King and Country."

Representation in the Parliament of England would have only made a difference if the Colonists had real power there and, if the Parliament had been willing to accede to their virtual independence in the first place.
Moishe3rd is offline  
Old February 17th, 2012, 05:42 AM   #13
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
Here's a couple potential reasons. How much of a role they played, I don't know though:

1. Perhaps they feared that if they gave representation to the American colonists, it might set a precedent where they'd have to give representation to other colonies.

2. Given the vast size of the American colonies, a population explosion could cause colonial representation to dwarf the representation of the mother country. For example, the American population at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War was just under 3 million. The population of Great Britain in 1750 (closest year I could find) was about 6.5 million. That would give Americans a large voice in British government. But the situation gets much worse as time goes by. If America was still a colony today, and if she had representation proportional to her population, Americans would have 5 times the representation that the residents of the British islands would have. In effect, Britain would be an American colony.
Given that in such case the Americans would still be just British people on the other side of the Ocean, that would have been only fair.

After all, any nation is something more than the mere territory people lives on.

Ostensibly, it was the inability to deal with such fact which provoked the independence of the 13 colonies.

Interestingly, such was not the case for all British North America.
sylla1 is offline  
Old February 17th, 2012, 05:46 AM   #14

Linschoten's Avatar
nonpareil
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 9,677
Blog Entries: 11

Quote:
The "Tea tax" was indeed the last straw for both parties.
England was trying to save the East India Company and wanted to dump their excess tea on the Colonies.
They were selling it for less and taxing it less than it was in England! It would have been much cheaper to buy English tea than it was to smuggle it into America.
This is quite funny, how very tactless of the British to provide the Americans with cheap tea, thus depriving American smugglers of the opportunity of providing their fellow-Americans with more expensive tea!

(At least that's a fairly accurate account of the matter, most people here in Britain think that the British government offended the Americans by trying to make them pay more for their tea.)
Linschoten is offline  
Old February 17th, 2012, 05:46 AM   #15
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
Cash Cow? Really? The level of taxation was actually much less than in Britain at the time. The taxation was specifically to for the costs of defending the colonies, which the taxes would only cover partially. They were seeking to get away with much less rather than much more. It wasnt unreasonable in the context.

The colonists being represented in Parliament would not have been very large the franchise rules were very limited. So a few representives would not have given the colonies a massive say. It would have been pretty unworkable, given the distance.

No taxation without representation might have been the slogan but I think they didnt want representation. They wanted control of their affairs. I'm pretty sure they had higher taxes after the 'revolution; than before.
It's a fact that they had to pay higher taxes later.
The issue was obviously representation, not taxes per se.
Or control of their affairs, if you like.
Both terms are for the purposes of this thread simply synonyms.

After all, why on Earth would anyone require political representation if it's not for the control of the own affairs?
sylla1 is offline  
Old February 17th, 2012, 05:49 AM   #16
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linschoten View Post
This is quite funny, how very tactless of the British to provide the Americans with cheap tea, thus depriving American smugglers of the opportunity of providing their fellow-Americans with more expensive tea!

(At least that's a fairly accurate account of the matter, most people here in Britain think that the British government offended the Americans by trying to make them pay more for their tea.)
What was historically relevant was the lack of the political tact required to acknowledge the fair political representation; that's all.
sylla1 is offline  
Old May 5th, 2012, 08:07 AM   #17
Citizen
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sargon of Akkad View Post
I'm not well-educated on the American Revolution, so hopefully someone can answer this for me.

Given the whole "no taxation without representation" rallying cry (which I find perfectly reasonable) why didn't the British simply give the colonies political representation?

From a state's point of view, it would seem to provide greater bonds and loyalty with the mother state without having to do anything material to provide it as they would then have a vested interest in staying with the homeland.

It would be a lot easier for ambitious American politicians to progress up the established political ranks to 'Governor of the Americas' or something like that than instigate a full-blown war against a world empire, so the sort of men who crave power will have an outlet for their ambitions.

Not only that, the British government must have known that the settlers of the new land were still Englishmen, with the same opinions on the inherent political rights they would have possessed in England, and would naturally expect this political representation to extend to them in a new land.

It just seems odd to me that they weren't just given it.

The real reason.
The US would have had to borrow English coinage at interest from the BOE.
Everything goes back to that square mile.

Benjamin Franklin
“There was abundance in the Colonies, and peace was reigning on every border. It was difficult, and even impossible, to find a happier and more prosperous nation on all the surface of the globe. Comfort was prevailing in every home. The people, in general, kept the highest moral standards, and education was widely spread.”
When Benjamin Franklin went over to England to represent the interests of the Colonies, he saw a completely different situation: the working population of this country was gnawed by hunger and poverty. “The streets are covered with beggars and tramps,” he wrote. He asked his English friends how England, with all its wealth, could have so much poverty among its working classes.
His friends replied that England was a prey to a terrible condition: it had too many workers! The rich said they were already overburdened with taxes, and could not pay more to relieve the needs and poverty of this mass of workers. Several rich Englishmen of that time actually believed, along with Mathus, that wars and plague were necessary to rid the country from man-power surpluses.
Franklin’s friends then asked him how the American Colonies managed to collect enough money to support their poor houses, and how they could overcome this plague of pauperism. Franklin replied:
“We have no poor houses in the Colonies; and if we had some, there would be nobody to put in them, since there is, in the Colonies, not a single unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps.”
Thanks To Free Money Issued By The Nation
miley is offline  
Old May 5th, 2012, 08:21 AM   #18
Citizen
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 28

USA and UK are completely blind to parts of their history.
The British Crown was irrelevant.
The Crown Corporation has run England for hundreds of years and it controlled most of the Empire.
The BOE controls the money and the Fed.
1812 was us was not behaving,issuing debt free currency.
It was the main political issue of the 19th century.
Two Presidents thought they were above the BOE and challenged them by issuing US debt free currency,
I realize that this was a coincidence,who were they?
When you answer that and apply it to history ,things are clear.
Otherwise it is a jumble of individuals,acting radomly.
miley is offline  
Old May 5th, 2012, 08:24 AM   #19
Citizen
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Given that in such case the Americans would still be just British people on the other side of the Ocean, that would have been only fair.

After all, any nation is something more than the mere territory people lives on.

Ostensibly, it was the inability to deal with such fact which provoked the independence of the 13 colonies.

Interestingly, such was not the case for all British North America.
When in the past 100 years since the sinking of the Titanic has the US not done as directed?The special relationship etc.
miley is offline  
Old May 5th, 2012, 10:23 AM   #20

RoryOMore's Avatar
Foremost Authority
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Northern Virginia
Posts: 2,908

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bismarck View Post
'Representation' was not something governments simply 'granted' to people, especially in the 18th century. I would hazard a guess that 99% of all representation won by people over the years has only been won by fighting for it.
This is basically right. Great Britain didn't come to grips with universal male suffrage and any sort of equal representation in Commons until the middle of the 19th century. The government's basic position was that the system had been successful, and they weren't changing that.
RoryOMore is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
american, britain, colonies, representation, simply


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why did Britain let go of its colonies so easily? jeroenrottgering European History 22 June 2nd, 2011 03:36 AM
If Britain had kept the American colonies, would there have been a British Empire in Vladd Speculative History 16 May 29th, 2011 10:05 PM
Britain better off for losing the American Revolution? 2011 War and Military History 31 January 9th, 2011 09:22 AM
American Colonies by Alfred Talyor huskerguy77 History Book Reviews 8 October 27th, 2009 09:05 PM
American Colonies huskerguy77 History Book Reviews 5 June 7th, 2009 08:57 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.