Could Britain have prevented the American Revolution?

[Dachs]

It's funniest when the colonials get stronger than the metropole and decide to keep underwriting the empire anyway.

 

[aronnax]

"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.

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.

What I meant was that perhaps the reason why AUS + NZL didn't clamour for Dominion/increased home rule was because Britain kept granting, handling and creating a local AUS/NZL political self-rule.
With America, they left the colonies alone to rule themselves for most of it before Britain coming in with her taxes and increased supervision over the American continent.

 

[colonialfan]

Can we try and stay focussed on the question at hand and not get diverted into a brief history on the political evolution of Australia and New Zealand?

 

[Masada]

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

Australia didn't even exist when those events occurred either

What I meant was that perhaps the reason why AUS + NZL didn't clamour for Dominion/increased home rule was because Britain kept granting, handling and creating a local AUS/NZL political self-rule.

They kind of did in the US as well mang.

Can we try and stay focussed on the question at hand and not get diverted into a brief history on the political evolution of Australia and New Zealand?

It's material to the question. If other colonies didn't rebel, why then did America?

 

[Lord Baal]

It's funniest when the colonials get stronger than the metropole and decide to keep underwriting the empire anyway.

Brazil?

 

[ParkCungHee]

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.

Were there any Dominions that no one attempted to make a part of Ireland?

 

[innonimatu]

Brazil?

Yeah, the only instance of an european metropole (kind of) rebelling against the colony, the capital having been moved there!

 

[Louis XXIV]

Compromise was more difficult than people think, although I don't think the British government really attempted more than token compromise (even then, it was a carrot and stick approach with the stick being the more obvious of the two).

There were two problems.
One, the need to ease the tax burden at home and share it with the colonies.
Two, the desire of the colonists for representation or self-government.

Addressing two, there were two options.
One, representation in Parliament. The problem there is Scotland had been given representation and that already shocked the system. To allow the colonies representation would be a bigger shock. Furthermore, there were growing cities without representation inside England. Electoral reform on a massive scale was needed, but there wasn't the political will for it. Instead, Parliament was supposed to represent everyone's interests, including the colonies.
The other option was a separate Parliament. This was the system set up in Ireland, but it wasn't exactly making things easier there. Granted, disenfranchisement of most of the Irish was a contributing factor, but, at the time, it didn't seem a useful solution.

As for revenue. Direct taxes were considered an anathema. That meant indirect taxes on trade. The problem with that is smuggling was rampant and approved of. The only way to fix that were laws affecting the colonies internally, which, once again, required approval of colonial legislators (who would likely say no) or acting through Parliament (which was the source of the strife in the first place). They could order governors themselves to crack down, but governors were paid by colonial legislators and were often hated anyway.

There was very little that could be done to both remove the laxness of management and the sense of entitlement to have lax management. Certainly, a return to pre-1760 affairs would have avoided revolution, but it would also have avoided managing colonies like an efficient Empire believed it should be able to.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Certainly, a return to pre-1760 affairs would have avoided revolution, but it would also have avoided managing colonies like an efficient Empire believed it should be able to.

Basically, the problem was that the American-British elite were a bunch of reactionary Tories, while the European-British rulers were trying to organize reforms to introduce a modern state with a fair distribution of the tax burden....

Seeing things that way is quite helpful in understanding subsequent history, IMHO....

 

[Louis XXIV]

American elite depends on which group you mean. The proprietors and governors or the merchants and land owners?

It's not so easy to say the Americans wanting independence were reactionary. They wanted a maintenance of the old system, but they didn't justify it based on the traditional argument of "ancient rights." Instead, they took the most progressive philosophies of the day and carved out a system that justified connection with Great Britain, but maintenance of laissez-faire policies. They rejected the sovereignty of King-in-Parliament and replaced it with essentially a sovereignty of the people who are protected by the King (essentially the split between legislative and executive, but also a complete rejection of Parliament without representation). They may have wanted essentially status quo, but their reasons were new and revolutionary.

 

[Tahuti]

Australia didn't even exist when those events occurred either

I know. But wasn't there a realization that the British colonies that are today's Australia had a common identity distinct from Britain?

It's material to the question. If other colonies didn't rebel, why then did America?

Because Britain's grip on other colonies was either very strong (India, Africa) or because they actually had taxation with representation (Canada, Australia).

 

[Lord Baal]

I know. But wasn't there a realization that the British colonies that are today's Australia had a common identity distinct from Britain?


Because Britain's grip on other colonies was either very strong (India, Africa) or because they actually had taxation with representation (Canada, Australia).

Britain's grip on India was never that strong. They ruled there with the assistance of native elites, just as they did in most of Africa (and to some extent, New Zealand). Australia was an exemption, just as, funnily enough, America was, in that it was primarily a settler society, rather than a traditional colony. You'll note that it is the predominantly White Anglo-Celtic societies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand which to this day remain most-friendly to Britain.

 

[Antilogic]

Britain's grip on India was never that strong. They ruled there with the assistance of native elites, just as they did in most of Africa (and to some extent, New Zealand). Australia was an exemption, just as, funnily enough, America was, in that it was primarily a settler society, rather than a traditional colony. You'll note that it is the predominantly White Anglo-Celtic societies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand which to this day remain most-friendly to Britain.

Yeah, comparison to India and Africa, where the native peoples were more exploited than exterminated/resettled, is going to be fishy at best.

Perhaps I'm showing my limited knowledge of the dominions and the Commonwealth, but I always figured that home rule in Britain's far-flung territories was a lesson they learned with the American Revolution. If you neglect your colonies for a century or so and then levy taxes, replace local governments with royal appointees, etc. you are likely to face a revolution. If you work through the local governments, either by establishing some sort of home rule as in the settled colonies or through the native elites like in India, you are less likely to provoke rebellions.

The 1770s American political situation was unique in the sense that some of your conservative types that favored the low-tax low-royal-intervention status quo of the pre-1760s were on the same side as the liberals, meant in the terms of favoring representative government. However, the liberals and conservatives in the new US don't line up with the liberals and conservatives in Britain. Louis XXIV's analysis doesn't strike me as too far off.

 

[Masada]

I know. But wasn't there a realization that the British colonies that are today's Australia had a common identity distinct from Britain?

Yes, and no. It's a complex question. An 'Australian' identity insofar as it existed before the 1920s and really the 1940s was, more or less, synonymous with British-people-living-in-Australia. That also disguises a significant amount of variation in attitudes to the question: sometimes on a rural/urban level, sometimes across states, sometimes across ethnic and religious divides. Even so, it wasn't common to refer to oneself as Australia until the 1920s. Most were content to identity as British. Moreover, Vinegar Hill and the Rum Rebellion were long before this had even become an issue. And the Eureka Stockade was notable for having few 'Australians' being involved. There was a complement of 500 Californians who took up arms for instance; Italians, Poles and Russians were also involved.