A British Wank from a guy in the U.S?

I simply change one thing, Parliament decides to allow delegates from the American Colonies, hence, less likely we're to rebel.

What say you?

I would make a timeline but I'm afraid I'd do terrible.
 
Heh, I still basically have it so it's America doesn't end up leaveing the British Empire. Thus, makeing one wonder where time goes from there.
 
Do other colonies, like 'Upper' Canada get MPs as well?
"Upper" Canada? Why would that exist, if we assume we're getting rid of the ARW?

The Province of Quebec may get a delegate, though it was governed differently under the Quebec Act. It's possible that later Anglo migration into the territory leads to a split of the Province (which extended down to the Ohio River) into an English-speaking colony and a French-speaking colony, but the border may very well not be on the Ottawa but may be further south, and it could be later than OTL as well.
 
Guys

Would the colonists have accepted that however? The assumption is that being treated as British citizens would have also meant them paying taxes at British levels. As such I could see the bulk of the population, loyalists included, lynching any colonial leaders who agreed to such an idea. Otherwise it would be a great idea for Britain as, even with a lower successful actual collection of taxes than in Britain you would still probably get something like a 20% increase in the total tax take.

Think that Quebec, or at least the areas that were predominately French would stay outside the Parliament. They would have no desire to send members to a British Parliament, being drawn into and absorbed by the much larger British colonial organisation or of course paying the taxes.

Steve
 
I believe Lord North, early on in the Revolution, was willing to make America a dominion in all but name (simply due to 'dominion' as a political term not existing yet). Thus, they'd pay higher taxes anyways, but in turn have their own parliament and the right to run local things. Essentially like OTL America except the British may take a share of overall income and the rest to local American needs.
 
Would the colonists have accepted that however? The assumption is that being treated as British citizens would have also meant them paying taxes at British levels. As such I could see the bulk of the population, loyalists included, lynching any colonial leaders who agreed to such an idea. Otherwise it would be a great idea for Britain as, even with a lower successful actual collection of taxes than in Britain you would still probably get something like a 20% increase in the total tax take.

I think they may have accepted such an idea in, say, 1766, before the conflict had grown irreconcilable with Sons of Liberty and tar and feathers and all the rest. By the 1770s, you're right, at least many colonial leaders would not have accepted such an offer.

Think that Quebec, or at least the areas that were predominately French would stay outside the Parliament. They would have no desire to send members to a British Parliament, being drawn into and absorbed by the much larger British colonial organisation or of course paying the taxes.

As was pointed out, Quebec included the entire Great Lakes region at this time. But it was largely full of French and Iroquois and various Algonquian persons who would not have had much interest in any seats in Westminster, you're probably right. Nova Scotia is a different story, however. Maybe even Newfoundland and the Floridas.
 
I think they may have accepted such an idea in, say, 1766, before the conflict had grown irreconcilable with Sons of Liberty and tar and feathers and all the rest. By the 1770s, you're right, at least many colonial leaders would not have accepted such an offer.

As was pointed out, Quebec included the entire Great Lakes region at this time. But it was largely full of French and Iroquois and various Algonquian persons who would not have had much interest in any seats in Westminster, you're probably right. Nova Scotia is a different story, however. Maybe even Newfoundland and the Floridas.

The late 1760's would have been the time for such a plan to come to pass successfully. Also, the Quebec Act became law in 1774. Prior to then the Great Lakes region (modern Ontario, Michigan, Ohio, etc., were not part of Quebec). If such a plan came to pass in say 1769/70, then I doubt the QA happens. The portion of OTL Ontario between Georgian Bay and Lake Ontario (perhaps called Canada, Guelph or Mississauga), would likely be formally established in the mid-1790's as people begin moving west. Perhaps later on, the "Niagra Canal" is built a few years earlier then OTL as well.
 
I can see most of the issues colonists had at the time being smoothed over by having representation in parliament (In spite of the distance troubles which would be significant) with the exception of westward expansionism. I mean in OTL there were serious concerns of a military conflict breaking out between Pennsylvania and Virginia over Pittsburgh, even though technically there weren't supposed to be people out that far west.

The Parliament didn't want to budge on allowing the colonists moving West, and the Americans would refuse to be constrained. England would have to take a "The Continent is yours, go nuts." approach for it to succeed.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
IIRC, Benjamin Franklin was approached with such a proposal shortly before he left Britain after the episode in the "Cockpit". But I simply don't see it as feasible, because of the distance. It took MONTHS for news and orders to travel across the Atlantic. Parliament in London cannot have direct responsibility for negotiations with Indian tribes, or to deal with slave revolts, and other such matters that require immediate attention from local authorities. No, some sort of Dominion status is the only realistic solution that keeps America within the British Empire.
 
If the American colonies stayed under British rule and were represented in the UK Parliament there would be two big issues in the 1830s.

Firstly the Great Reform Act codified voting rights. Prior to that some Boroughs had (like I believe the colonies) a very wide franchise and in those places people actually lost voting rights.

Secondly Britain abolished slavery in all its colonies. I suspect that in certain American colonies in such a time line there would be some resistence.
 
Top