WI : British American Colonies established with the intention of a local Parliament

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

One of the big stated reasons for the ARW was no taxation without representation, and one of the weaknesses of the pre-Constitution system was disjointed colonies.

I'm curious as to what would happen if the various colonies, rather than being completely autonomous entities, we instead colonised under a single Crown Colony, who was responsible for establishing an organised effort for colonising the New World (Or at least the eastern seaboard), with the basic mechanism being a governor, who is appointed by the King, with veto-power over a Parliament (on behalf of the King), who with the Parliament divides new colonial estates into new constituencies.

Assuming it also has a small number of ships and armed forces to begin with (say 3 carracks and 300-odd men), how does this change the colonisation of the new world by England?

(Perhaps as a jumping off point, Elizabeth changes the terms of the charter given to Raleigh, providing the ships and troops in exchange for 2/5ths of the precious metals mined, rather than just 1/5th).

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Anyone (bump) ?

 

[B-29_Bomber]

1) Elizabethan England likely doesn't have those kinds of resources in the late 15th century.
2) The Eastern Seaboard of the United States never had the mineral wealth to make an exploitative mining economy work.
3) The biggest problem wasn't the disjointed nature of the colonies, but the neglect that England showed to the Colonies due to being distracted by events closer to home (English Civil War, Thirty Years War) which created a scenario where the colonies needed to become self-sufficient governmentally in order to survive.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

1) Elizabethan England likely doesn't have those kinds of resources in the late 15th century.

3 Ships and 300 men? I suppose it isn't insignificant, but what if the troops were offered payment in land, and the same with the sailors. At which point you've got supply and ship costs, but 3 ships can't be the end of the world in a Post-Armada world. Maybe a smaller class of ship, or armed merchant ships would do the job, but 3 can't be THAT pressing surely?

2) The Eastern Seaboard of the United States never had the mineral wealth to make an exploitative mining economy work.

Oh, totally - But the Tudors didn't know that. The intention is to incentivise with ownership of gold/silver under Crown protection, but the Crown Colony would still in theory earn money as typical colonies.

3) The biggest problem wasn't the disjointed nature of the colonies, but the neglect that England showed to the Colonies due to being distracted by events closer to home (English Civil War, Thirty Years War) which created a scenario where the colonies needed to become self-sufficient governmentally in order to survive.

Which is why I'm suggesting to do it off of the bat. Whilst they may be dependent in the early years, we all know there is nothing that can stop a colony eventually becoming self-sufficient. Having the institutions to back that up in the first place is the main point.

I'd argue that there were some issues because the colonies were disjointed, mainly in organising themselves and ease of governance for England and New England.

Plus, we have nearly 100 years before the start of this and the Civil War. Elizabeth might have a child, rather than James becoming King - and even if he becomes King, there is a precedent for a relationship between the two Parliaments, which could entirely butterfly away the Civil War, instead having the Scottish Parliament believing even the New English Parliament has more power of the King than them - leading to both Scottish and English Parliaments bringing the Monarch under control politically. (Hehehe, the idea of Cromwell becoming the First Minister of New England is a fun one). - but that depends on the powers granted to the American Parliament, and their exact relationship with the Crown and Westminster.

 

[Mental_Wizard]

The colonies would have to have the same laws....

They were divided by religion, religious tolerance, and language (to a degree).

I find it unlikely that they could all be governed the same way with OTL colonization patterns.

Now, a smaller English colony with colonists of one religion and language? Crown colony sounds fine. They will probably be less likely to rebel as well.

 

[Alex Richards]

Some sort of provision for individual colonial Parliaments within the Kingdom would be both more likely and more workable really.

 

[Matteo]

One of the big stated reasons for the ARW was no taxation without representation, and one of the weaknesses of the pre-Constitution system was disjointed colonies.

I'm curious as to what would happen if the various colonies, rather than being completely autonomous entities, we instead colonised under a single Crown Colony, who was responsible for establishing an organised effort for colonising the New World (Or at least the eastern seaboard), with the basic mechanism being a governor, who is appointed by the King, with veto-power over a Parliament (on behalf of the King), who with the Parliament divides new colonial estates into new constituencies.

Assuming it also has a small number of ships and armed forces to begin with (say 3 carracks and 300-odd men), how does this change the colonisation of the new world by England?

(Perhaps as a jumping off point, Elizabeth changes the terms of the charter given to Raleigh, providing the ships and troops in exchange for 2/5ths of the precious metals mined, rather than just 1/5th).

I think this is impossible.

Consider the analogy. William the conqueror did not conquer England windering how he could establish a Parliament.

In monarchic and aristocratic ages, no established power considered splitting its jurisdiction area and setting a separate political body on equal footing.

What mattered to the english/british aristocracy which dominated the political stage was most of all retaining their power, not giving It away to "upstarts" living 6,000 kilometers away and dependant on the military support of the british metropolis.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

I think this is impossible.

Consider the analogy. William the conqueror did not conquer England windering how he could establish a Parliament.

In monarchic and aristocratic ages, no established power considered splitting its jurisdiction area and setting a separate political body on equal footing.

What mattered to the english/british aristocracy which dominated the political stage was most of all retaining their power, not giving It away to "upstarts" living 6,000 kilometers away and dependant on the military support of the british metropolis.

Fair point!

Which makes me curious, what if Parliament (and the Parliamentarian faction I guess it might be called) held the monarchs hands in other areas to make it so, seeing the chance to expand the power and wealth of their families through Parliamentary seats (and political control) in the colonies. Basically "Give us this (which we will likely be able to benefit from), or we won't fund the other".

Does that require a faction? Yeah - perhaps one that sees the benefits of being the Viceroys of Spanish colonies, and wants to keep that wealth, and power, within the members of Parliament or their families. The 'Colonial' faction seeing the colonies as a way to enrich themselves via the expansion of the 'realm' and the franchise into the colonies. Parliamentary families with second/third sons going overseas to become Parliamentarians and make the family money overseas.

- I don't see that as unrealistic tbh.

 

[Clandango]

Parliament wasn't exactly something everyone aspired too. It involved unpaid work that some people were forced to take, and only the wealthy could participate. Plus the boundaries were not changed in Britain for centuries. How woudl they decide upon it in colonies only begining to be settled? Maybe Congregationalists will be receptive, though more as a House of Commons type thing.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Parliament wasn't exactly something everyone aspired too. It involved unpaid work that some people were forced to take, and only the wealthy could participate. Plus the boundaries were not changed in Britain for centuries. How woudl they decide upon it in colonies only begining to be settled? Maybe Congregationalists will be receptive, though more as a House of Commons type thing.

Well, if people could see a way to make money out of it (like, you know, today), it'd probably be seen as another way for the gentry to make some cash. Does this mean that you might see a risk of New World Gentry? Probably. It might work with the Gentry wanting to make it clear that they need to be involved if the New Money wants to go anywhere, simply so they can protect their interests. Whether it works is another thing all together.

As to how would they decide in young colonies - I dunno, how would they decide any political or legislative action? We're not talking about changing UK ones - but simply establishing them afresh in the colonies. Perhaps the first assumption is an MP per settlement (or group) over 1000 people - or an MP per chartered region if the Kings Rep gives it the OK. I have no issue with the idea that you'd see colonial charters via that mechanism that led to more, smaller charters handled by the same colonial company - having the governor and extant MPs determine seats by geographic concerns.