Could Britain have prevented the American Revolution?

[Tahuti]

"No taxation without representation" was the battlecry that rallied Americans to fight against British "tyranny". Of course, there was some truth to the statement, as the House of Commons didn't represent any territories of the Thirteen Colonies.

Would the American Revolution have been fully prevented had Britain either granted representation or let taxation to decide by the Thirteen Colonies (like Britain ultimately did with Canada and Australia), or would other factors like slavery come into play as well?

Note that I do realize the chances of the Thirteen Colonies having representation or dominion status was highly unlikely, since - AFAIAA - the idea of dominion was devised in part because of the American experience.

Discuss

 

[LightSpectra]

It might've been inevitable eventually, but Parliament surely could've prevented war in 1775; the Americans were, in my opinion, quite reasonable in their petitions to Parliament.

 

[cegman]

Sure at three broad times. All would've caused huge changes in general history but I'm not going to comment on that.

1.They could've taken a more active role in the british colonies and had a much different type of government.

2. They could've in the 60's and early 70's taken the approach of working with the local governments to raise taxes for the state.

3. They could've listened to Ben Franklin or the 1st continental congress instead of having the King shout for war.

Of course these are very broad and open ways of stating it.

 

[Cutlass]

I think that the Americans were growing to be a different people than the British. And that eventually that difference would have caused a split. However, at the time of the American Revolution it was not foregone that it would happen. And a little of taking the protests seriously on the part of the king and Parliament could have gone a long ways to defusing the situation.

 

[Tahuti]

I think that the Americans were growing to be a different people than the British.

You could say the same about British vs. Canadians, New Zealanders or Australians and that would mean America would have become a dominion of the British Empire, possibly including Canada as well. However, I do recall that the Australian people came very close to war with the British Empire and dominion status was granted partly in response to that.

 

[deanej]

My 11th grade history teacher said that representation would have been impossible due to travel times. How was that resolved for Canada and Australia?

The big issue was salutary neglect from the 1650s to the French and Indian War. Had Britain actually administered the colonies previously (so they wouldn't get accustomed to self rule) thing probably would have gone better.

 

[aronnax]

You could say the same about British vs. Canadians, New Zealanders or Australians and that would mean America would have become a dominion of the British Empire, possibly including Canada as well. However, I do recall that the Australian people came very close to war with the British Empire and dominion status was granted partly in response to that.

You can say the same thing about Manchester and Norfolk too!

 

[Tahuti]

My 11th grade history teacher said that representation would have been impossible due to travel times. How was that resolved for Canada and Australia?

Dominion status. On foreign policy and lesser extent the military, they were tied to Britain until the 1930s, but they were fully independent on fiscal on monetary matters.

 

[Masada]

Dominion status didn't matter all that much. New Zealand and Australia had been self-governing for a long time before that. New Zealand for instance became a dominion in 1907 but had been granted functional self-government in 1846 through the New Zealand Constitution Act 1846, although that was suspended by Grey to protect Maori interests, the second attempt in 1852 saw elections for a bi-caramel Parliament take place in 1853 with Parliament called for the first time in 1854. In 1856 the new Parliament was granted full control of domestic affairs - excluding native i.e. Maori affairs - which was granted to it in any case in the 1860s. Parliament wasn't helpless either it was a major cause of the Maori Wars of the 1860s and 1870s. Even on military matters during the Maori Wars, a British responsibility, Parliament was vocal, going so far as to pick a fight with Duncan Alexander the British general in command during the Invasion of Waikato and Tauranga War. The latter of which Alexander was ambivalent towards largely as a result of the perception that Parliament had caused it. With the removal of British troops in the 1870s Parliament was given the power to raise a militia to continue to prosecute the Maori War. Thus by the 1870s New Zealand's Parliament was more than capable of provoking wars and of fighting them at least domestically. British input in New Zealand affairs after that point were fairly limited and were, more or less, confined to the person of the governor and the occasional act of Parliament in London.

 

[colonialfan]

The American Revolution was not envitable. A split from Britain probably was at some point, but it need not have come about through a war, it could have been like the dominion status that other British possessions such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand obtained. American representation in parliament, may have been possible, however it was unlikely, and undesired by the colonies. Remember 'no taxation without representation,' was purely a catchy slogan. The last thing the colonists wanted was political representation in a parliament where they could easily be voted down on every issue.

Even as late as early 1776, America was not looking for a separation from Britain, what they sought was the right to govern themselves while remaing within the framework of the British Empire.

 

[Masada]

I'll reiterate Dominion status wasn't important. Australia and New Zealand both didn't push for it all that hard.

 

[aronnax]

I'll reiterate Dominion status wasn't important. Australia and New Zealand both didn't push for it all that hard.

Given that the America colonies had 172 years of British rule before the revolution and if we assumed that Australia gained full self-governing status in 1901, that's a 113 years of British rule. It's even less for New Zealand.

Perhaps Australia and New Zealand didn't push that hard for it because Britain kept handling it to them on a plate.

 

[cegman]

Masada I don't really know what Dominion status was but based on what I know I don't see how what NZ and auzzies had before "Dominion status" was any different.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

However, I do recall that the Australian people came very close to war with the British Empire and dominion status was granted partly in response to that.

I've never come across any such occurrence. I can't think of any point in history when Australia came close to war with other parts of the Empire/Commonwealth.

Others welcome to come up with examples...

 

[Masada]

Given that the America colonies had 172 years of British rule before the revolution and if we assumed that Australia gained full self-governing status in 1901, that's a 113 years of British rule. It's even less for New Zealand.

"British Rule" meaning what? "Australia" insofar as it didn't exist until 1901 had at least in New South Wales an appointed Legislative Assembly from 1825. This was made elective in 1845 and was constituted as a full responsible government in 1855. The rest of the major Australian colonies followed soon after.

Perhaps Australia and New Zealand didn't push that hard for it because Britain kept handling it to them on a plate.

That's rather different from "dominion status" as an explanation in itself. It's also nonsense. The difference between Dominion status and not-Dominion status was marginal. There wasn't a need to push for it: Australia and New Zealand had both achieved effective independence in domestic affairs. The whole point of granting Dominion status was to formalise a state of affairs that had existed for a few decades. The other telling thing is that the Statute of Westminster 1931 which was intended to grant equality in respect of legislation, and grant, in effect, full independence was only passed into Australia law in 1942 and in New Zealand's case in 1945. In both cases over a decade after the option had been put on the table.

Masada I don't really know what Dominion status was but based on what I know I don't see how what NZ and auzzies had before "Dominion status" was any different.

My point exactly!

However, I do recall that the Australian people came very close to war with the British Empire and dominion status was granted partly in response to that.

Woah, yeah. This never happened. Australia has had a total of two instances of domestic insurrection in our entire history. The first was the hilariously named Rum Rebellion where some colonial magnates with the support of the New South Wales Regiment ousted the governor - William freaking Bligh of Mutiny on the Bounty Fame - because he was an all around cockhead. The other instance was the Eureka Stockade which was somewhere between a race riot - aimed at Chinese miners - and a tax protest gone wrong - aimed at mining licences - in which a whole bunch of miners took to a barricade and returned fire on some troops. The net result of which was horror from all involved and a slew of reforms. You could also include Vinegar Hill in which a bunch of Irish conflicts slipped their chains and proclaimed an "Australian Empire" on "New Ireland". It was put down fairly quickly though.

 

[Dachs]

You could also include Vinegar Hill in which a bunch of Irish conflicts slipped their chains and proclaimed an "Australian Empire" on "New Ireland". It was put down fairly quickly though.

"Convicts", I think.

 

[Masada]

How familiar are you with Australian history dachs?

 

[Tahuti]

Woah, yeah. This never happened. Australia has had a total of two instances of domestic insurrection in our entire history. The first was the hilariously named Rum Rebellion where some colonial magnates with the support of the New South Wales Regiment ousted the governor - William freaking Bligh of Mutiny on the Bounty Fame - because he was an all around cockhead. The other instance was the Eureka Stockade which was somewhere between a race riot - aimed at Chinese miners - and a tax protest gone wrong - aimed at mining licences - in which a whole bunch of miners took to a barricade and returned fire on some troops. The net result of which was horror from all involved and a slew of reforms. You could also include Vinegar Hill in which a bunch of Irish conflicts slipped their chains and proclaimed an "Australian Empire" on "New Ireland". It was put down fairly quickly though.

Basically, If I'm understanding you right, these were just outbursts, and never could have led to revolution ala America.

I thought that way because I grossly overestimated the Eureka Stockade.

 

[REDY]

When colony became stronger than its colonisators the independence is inevitable. That maybe wasnt case of 1776 but definately would be soon, maybe much sooner without war.
American revolutionaries offered not only the independence, but also citizenship status with rights and vision with democratic ethos - this was appealing not only to Americans but also Europeans, especcially British rivals and nations without own country. Simpy put, there was some unique quality in revolution, which couldnt be prevented by British unless they would invent it ourselves. (I know that British had parliament and such, hope that you understand me what I mean)

 

[Cutlass]

America wouldn't be stronger than Britain before the middle of the 19th century at the least. (Canada, Australia, New Zealand never were). And if there remained British restrictions on American manufactures, geographic expansion, and immigration, it may have taken to the late 19th century. America didn't win independence by being stronger, but rather by getting the French involved to divide their focus and getting the war to drag on and on and on until they had lost the willingness to stick to it.