AH Gurps setting British North America

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

I disagree.

The colonies were too far away for representation in Parliament to make sense.

I'm not at all sure that's true. There's no fundamental reason why they couldn't accept some colonial representatives regardless of the communications lag. And by 1866 or so there wouldn't be one as trans-oceanic telegraphy started.

No, the real reason why that wasn't an option was because Britain was controlling an empire so much larger than Britain itself, that if they allowed representation the result would not be Britain ruling an empire, but an empire that ruled Britain.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

I'm not at all sure that's true. There's no fundamental reason why they couldn't accept some colonial representatives regardless of the communications lag. And by 1866 or so there wouldn't be one as trans-oceanic telegraphy started.

No, the real reason why that wasn't an option was because Britain was controlling an empire so much larger than Britain itself, that if they allowed representation the result would not be Britain ruling an empire, but an empire that ruled Britain.

Not many folks living 1776 would have predicted the advent of telegraphy and steam navigation.

Britain had a lot more people than the Thirteen Colonies in 1776. That doesn't necesarily matter, though. Remember, seats were not apportioned by population in Parliament. Don't mistake the UK of the late 18th and early 19th centuries for a 'democracy.' This was the age of the 'Rotten Borough' and sharply limited franschise.

PS- The dominant faction in Parliament had already established the principle that the American colonies were 'virtually represented' and asserted that Parliament could legislate for them in all cases whatsoever. Obviously, that doesn't leave much room for compromise.

They ought to have listened to William Pitt.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

Not many folks living 1776 would have predicted the advent of telegraphy and steam navigation.

Ah, but I was talking about the OP...where the American rebels were defeated. It doesn't end there of course. If the British just assume the matter is closed, then in the next generation or two they'll have another revolution. Policy changes have to be made. They were made in Canada for just that reason. So, either increased autonomy, or increased incorporation.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Ah, but I was talking about the OP...where the American rebels were defeated. It doesn't end there of course. If the British just assume the matter is closed, then in the next generation or two they'll have another revolution. Policy changes have to be made. They were made in Canada for just that reason. So, either increased autonomy, or increased incorporation.

Yes, that makes sense.

A degree of autonomy was of course, all the American rebels had originally demanded.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

I disagree.

The colonies were too far away for representation in Parliament to make sense. This was part of the problem during the Imperial Crisis and Revolutionary eras.

I was suggesting that the southeastern Cotton planters of the 19th century, could, like the West Indian Sugar Planters of the 18th century, simply buy seats in Rotten Boroughs . It was completely respectable to do so. Some charities were financed by selling off a seat in Parliament, the seat having been created for the charity to sell. The ecconomic interest of the West Indian Sugar Planters was represented by a strong contengent of weathly Sugar Planters who bought their way into Parliament. The North American colonies were far richer, but the wealth was more equally spread around than in Britain, with no concentraitions great enough to allow Americans to buy their way into Parliament.

If the American Revolution is crushed in 1777, and their are later southeastern Cotton Planters like in our history, then these people could have easily bought their way into Parliament, and been welcomed.

I don't think you've got the British abolition of slavery quite right. There were a number of factors, religious, economic, and political at work in the official end of slavery in the Empire.

Read Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837; Revised Colley makes a very strong case that the elites found the Anti-Slavery movement very useful. Yes their was a strong Anti-Slavery movement in Britain in the late 18th century, it could get its way because the elites saw it as a way of establishing the moral superiority of Britain over America and France.

Wilberforce was a hero, but the leaders of Parliament were total cynics. Heck, the man who wrote Amazing Grace keep his church invested in the Slave Trade right up to his death. And the buying and selling of Slaves in the West Indies went on unabated. One of the authors of the bill to abolish the African slave trade was a slave trader and remainded so to his death.

The 18th century could do doublethink too.

Robert E. Lee of Virginia would have seen his father hanged, so I rather doubt he'd be a big fan of the Brits, Astromancer. Most of the gentry of Virginia had sided with the Patriots in 1776, and Virginia was the very first colony to declare independence. Lighthorse Harry Lee would have faced the same fate at the hands of the victorious British as Jefferson, Washington, etc.

The use of Lee was mainly to illustrait that the Southeast (especially the Cotton Belt) would have become the politically dominant section of British North America, and any and all progressive movements would have been enthusiastically crush by the allience of the Cotton Lords and the Brits.

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

The use of Lee was mainly to illustrait that the Southeast (especially the Cotton Belt) would have become the politically dominant section of British North America, and any and all progressive movements would have been enthusiastically crush by the allience of the Cotton Lords and the Brits.

I'm confused. I've seen it argued that slave-grown cotton was already on the wane in 1860 (and that slavery as an institution would have withered on its own accord in another generation). Wouldn't the Industrial Lords of the Northern states eventually take over whatever pocket boroughs the Cotton Lords had had until then? And what about electoral reforms diong away with pocket boroughs? In OTL over a hundred such parliamentary seats were abolished in 1832. What sort of time frame are you talking about here?


Hans

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

I'm confused. I've seen it argued that slave-grown cotton was already on the wane in 1860 (and that slavery as an institution would have withered on its own accord in another generation). Wouldn't the Industrial Lords of the Northern states eventually take over whatever pocket boroughs the Cotton Lords had had until then? And what about electoral reforms diong away with pocket boroughs? In OTL over a hundred such parliamentary seats were abolished in 1832. What sort of time frame are you talking about here?


Hans

We can presuppose that British industrial interests would conspire with Southern Plantation owners to halt the industrialization of the Northeast, in attempts to maintain the British dominance in exports to the colonies.

[talonthehand]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Having attended both, neither do the private schools. I don't think you'll find many American schools extolling Benedict Arnold's virtues either.

Not that I've seen, though there are plenty that do for Robert E. Lee or "Stonewall" Jackson.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

I'm confused. I've seen it argued that slave-grown cotton was already on the wane in 1860 (and that slavery as an institution would have withered on its own accord in another generation).

I have always found those arguments too optimistic considering that the CSA could blame economic woes on the neighbour to the north and the institution was entrenched in the CSA constitution. The more plausible timeframe to my eyes would be more like 4 generations.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by talonthehand

Not that I've seen, though there are plenty that do for Robert E. Lee or "Stonewall" Jackson.

Being as neither man was a traitor, I fail to see any connection.