WI: British adopt Colonial tactics in Revolutionary War?

[deathscompanion1]

Arguable. Such a strategy would have turned the population against the Continentals as quickly as the coffers and never have materialized a Saratoga. Though if the British has gone about separating and destroying the Continental army piece by piece differently...

Yes but then you have to justify why your hiding from a bunch of traitors while British citizens die.

If the British try and wait things out it would be a Public Relations disaster as the Loyalists feel abandoned and leave and the British Public wonders what the hell is the point of paying for an army that does not fight.

 

[Magneto]

This explains the vociferous protest of lowering the rate but tightening enforcement of duties on say, rum.

Exactly right, also see the Boston Tea Party. Parliament tried to be clever and pull a ruse on the colonists. They figured that if they flooded the colonies with cheap tea...but crucially cheap tea with taxes placed on it, the colonists would start buying it because it was much cheaper than the smuggled tea many colonists were drinking while refusing to pay taxes. Of course while they were buying the tea from the East India Company they would be openly consenting to the principle of paying taxes as it was included in the price. Thus if they consent to this tax, how they can refuse the other taxes? How can they shout 'No taxation without representation?' when they've been buying taxed tea?

It was a clever idea but the leading Bostonian Patriots/Whigs caught onto the trick that parliament was trying to pull. A good deal of them were also making huge profits by smuggling cheap tea and would have been undercut by the government/EIC tea even with the taxes on top. So they orchestrated the Boston Tea Party to stop parliament's cunning plan.

 

[Elfwine]

Exactly right, also see the Boston Tea Party. Parliament tried to be clever and pull a ruse on the colonists. They figured that if they flooded the colonies with cheap tea...but crucially cheap tea with taxes placed on it, the colonists would start buying it because it was much cheaper than the smuggled tea many colonists were drinking while refusing to pay taxes. Of course while they were buying the tea from the East India Company they would be openly consenting to the principle of paying taxes as it was included in the price. Thus if they consent to this tax, how they can refuse the other taxes? How can they shout 'No taxation without representation?' when they've been buying taxed tea?

It was a clever idea but the leading Bostonian Patriots/Whigs caught onto the trick that parliament was trying to pull. A good deal of them were also making huge profits by smuggling cheap tea and would have been undercut by the government/EIC tea even with the taxes on top. So they orchestrated the Boston Tea Party to stop parliament's cunning plan.

My point is, the colonists did regard that part of the Navigation Acts to be unacceptable.

Thus said protests.

http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/chartcoltrade.html

 

[Magneto]

My point is, the colonists did regard that part of the Navigation Acts to be unacceptable.

Thus said protests.

Ah I misunderstood you slightly.

They regarded the taxation on goods as unacceptable, not the idea that Britain produced the majority of America's manufactured goods. The navigation acts were designed to protect Britain's markets more than they were to make America pay it's way. It's only after the French and Indian War when the idea of making America pay really gains ground.

The only time before the build up to the war when taxes were really used against the colonists was things like the Molasses Act, designed to make the colonists buy molasses from the British West Indies rather than French. This wasn't direct taxation though, it was trying to force the Americans into Imperial preference. It was a regulatory act, not a revenue raising act, it wasn't direct but indirect.

It was when the act was modified into the Sugar Act in 1764, explicitly to make America pay it's way in the empire that the colonial leaders got especially annoyed at it and started moving against the act. Previously under the Molasses Act, those that wanted to just tended to ignore the act rather than mobilise against it's legitimacy. This time parliament was expressly passing a tax designed for running America rather than trying to persuade America to trade with the British West Indies and that was a big issue.

It should also be noted that America was in an economic downturn at the time and many (wrongly) blamed the Sugar Act for causing it, rather than challenging the idea that America was largely agrarian and should import it's goods (Massachusetts always was a bit of an outlier).

 

[Elfwine]

They regarded the taxation on goods as unacceptable, not the idea that Britain produced the majority of America's manufactured goods. The navigation acts were designed to protect Britain's markets more than they were to make America pay it's way. It's only after the French and Indian War when the idea of making America pay really gains ground.

My point is, the taxation was part of the Navigation Acts from the beginning - that's part of what was supposed to make Americans buy British goods.

The only time before the build up to the war when taxes were really used against the colonists was things like the Molasses Act, designed to make the colonists buy molasses from the British West Indies rather than French. This wasn't direct taxation though, it was trying to force the Americans into Imperial preference. It was a regulatory act, not a revenue raising act, it wasn't direct but indirect.

It was when the act was modified into the Sugar Act in 1764, explicitly to make America pay it's way in the empire that the colonial leaders got especially annoyed at it and started moving against the act. Previously under the Molasses Act, those that wanted to just tended to ignore the act rather than mobilise against it's legitimacy. This time parliament was expressly passing a tax designed for running America rather than trying to get America to trade with the West Indies and that was a big issue.

So when the duties actually exist for America's benefit, they're outrageous, but when they're there just to benefit British planters, they're merely annoying.

I'm sure that I'm missing something, but . . .

 

[Magneto]

My point is, the taxation was part of the Navigation Acts from the beginning - that's part of what was supposed to make Americans buy British goods.

Supposed to get the Americans to buy British goods but came with no acceptance of parliament's supremacy. The average colonist accepted the taxes as they were a good trade off for the colonies autonomy and the British providing them with defence. It was a good trade off and as long as the British didn't seem to be using taxes to reduce colonial autonomy they didn't care greatly. Thus the lack of any major protests before the French and Indian War.

Of course there were plenty that just ignored the taxes because parliament rarely enforced them and there was money to be made from smuggling.

So when the duties actually exist for America's benefit, they're outrageous, but when they're there just to benefit British planters, they're merely annoying.

I'm sure that I'm missing something, but . . .

Well the first line pretty much describes what the British thought of the Americans. The British were still paying for the majority of America's defence expenditures, made America pay none of the interest on the public debt gained defending the Americans and conquering New France and most of all were doing this to make the colonists safe. Yet the Americans are actually protesting against this?!?

When they were just there to favour planters, they weren't associated with the idea that parliament wanted to dominate every aspect of American life, install an occupational army, give the Western lands to Quebec, prevent further expansion of the colonies, ever increase parliamentary control over the colonies etc.

There's a difference between the two. One is parliament being annoying trying to get the Americans trading with the West Indies, the other is part of the whole narrative of parliament vs. colonial autonomy. If parliament had actually bothered to attempt to enforce the Molasses Act, they might have prevented the issues of the 1760s.

 

[Elfwine]

Supposed to get the Americans to buy British goods but came with no acceptance of parliament's supremacy. The average colonist accepted the taxes as they were a good trade off for the colonies autonomy and the British providing them with defence. It was a good trade off and as long as the British didn't seem to be using taxes to reduce colonial autonomy they didn't care greatly. Thus the lack of any major protests before the French and Indian War.

They weren't using them to reduce colonial autonomy any more in the 1760s than when they were originally passed.

Well the first line pretty much describes what the British thought of the Americans. The British were still paying for the majority of America's defence expenditures, made America pay none of the interest on the public debt gained defending the Americans and conquering New France and most of all were doing this to make the colonists safe. Yet the Americans are actually protesting against this?!?

When they were just there to favour planters, they weren't associated with the idea that parliament wanted to dominate every aspect of American life, install an occupational army, give the Western lands to Quebec, prevent further expansion of the colonies, ever increase parliamentary control over the colonies etc.

That American propagandists tied the two together doesn't mean they had a link.

There's a difference between the two. One is parliament being annoying trying to get the Americans trading with the West Indies, the other is part of the whole narrative of parliament vs. colonial autonomy. If parliament had actually bothered to attempt to enforce the Molasses Act, they might have prevented the issues of the 1760s.

Given that its attempts to do so is exactly why we have the issues of the 1760s .. .

Parliament only started meddling with colonial governance after the protests went from aggravating to insurrectionist (or at least perceived as such if you prefer). It was not the agenda from the start.

 

[Magneto]

They weren't using them to reduce colonial autonomy any more in the 1760s than when they were originally passed.

That American propagandists tied the two together doesn't mean they had a link.

Given that its attempts to do so is exactly why we have the issues of the 1760s .. .

Yes this is my point. The fact is radical Americans won the propaganda battle and made out the taxes to be something they weren't. The Americans didn't have much of an issue about them before all the tumult of the 1760s, much of which was caused by blatant lies and rumour mongering. Quite a bit spread by people who would be economically disadvantaged by the restrain on land speculation and smuggling.

The idea that America was a great industrial nation in the making in the 1780s-1820s and would have been held back by the navigation acts if it had remained in the Empire is just wrong. It wasn't and there was no overriding desire to begin spamming out goods restricted by British trade restrictions. Jeffersonian agrarian ideals dominated and most considered Britain as the natural place to get their manufactured goods from. Industrial America didn't really begin developing until the Erie Canal and even then it was a slow burn. It was only in the 1820s when it regained it's pre-Revolutionary economic strength.

What fuelled the protest against British taxes was economic recession and the propaganised belief that parliament was using it's taxes to break America's autonomy, whereas in the past parliamentary taxes had always been half assed and designed for imperial preference rather than all these wild rumours about tyranny and repression.

If they'd cracked down on rum in the 1740s no large scale protests would have broke out. By the time they did in the 1760s (after the Tea Party) it had become part of a greater narrative, a narrative that made it appear like parliament was trying to remove the colonies autonomy rather than just regulate trade.

A modern example. I'm not particularly arsed that the EU costs me money by running the CAP and subsiding French farmers and making me buy their produce. Of course it annoys me but I'm not fuming about it. However if the EU introduced new taxes, installed an army in my town, economic recession was raging and everyone around me told me that the taxes and army were there not for my defence but to put the EU in charge and reduce my autonomy, I'd become mightily suspicious and militant. Both times I'm paying taxes but my attitude to them has changed greatly because of the supposed situation at hand.

So I don't particularly believe that continuing to enforce a form of the navigation acts and retarding American industrial progress would be an issue between Britain and America. So long as an accord was reached between the two as it had been up until 1763, however it required better more efficient politicians than the type Britain had at the time. Also if America had remained in the Empire, free trade currents would have reached Britain before 1840 (otl) and in the absence of an Imperial parliament, Dominion status would be becoming a more debated subject in America as it's industrial take off begins.

 

[othyrsyde]

This site can be OTT but it does raise issues about basic modern assumptions of the war www.redcoat.me.uk I do not agree with all it says, but it is useful to see things from a less typical perspective.

That was an interesting read, especially my ancestors fought for the British.

As for guerrilla tactics, some of the biggest unconventional forces fighting fought for the Union Jack instead of the Stars and Stripes as the page points out.