AHC: Avert the American Revolution...

Yeah, you're missing something. No, the colonists had never contributed direct taxes back to Great Britain before the Sugar and Stamp Acts. The taxation of the colonies was a 12-year experiment.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up! That makes a lot more sense--either I completely misremembered (which I'm hoping is the case), or my professors were really, really bad :(. When you say it was a 12-year experiment, how did Parliament decide on it? Is there any way that it would have consulted with colonial councils for the most equitable deal? Or would the colonials have always been upset enough with taxation to revolt or even declare independence?
 
No, I didn't imagine you would. Clearly books by established historians with expertise in the American revolutionary period are not reliable in the way websites for tourist attractions are.
Clearly books on an entirely different topic are naturally going to be about a fair and balanced portrayal of events that generations of Americans have presented in the most one sided manner possible.

I picked that website because it was one of the first things to come up when looking for Boston Tea Party numbers. If we're going to get into a question of better sources, where is something on British policy in this period to dispute this: http://www.stamp-act-history.com/stamp-act/1765-november-1-stamp-act/ ?

And looking up Fischer to get a better sense of what work he's done (American cultural history is not something I've studied very much) - he sounds like a great cultural historian, but that doesn't mean he's a good politician historian. Especially of British mid 18th century politics.

Again with the logical fallacies. Stating one reason for doing something does not contravene another reason for doing something. I'm not doubting for a second that the raising of revenue was the main reason for those acts. But there were secondary reasons for why stamp duty was targeted on certain things like lawyers and students.
Stating one reason for doing something and not stating the other reason is pretty clearly not a good sign of there being an explicit purpose to do the other reason.
 
Last edited:
Clearly books on an entirely different topic are naturally going to be about a fair and balanced portrayal of events that generations of Americans have presented in the most one sided manner possible.

I picked that website because it was one of the first things to come up when looking for Boston Tea Party numbers. If we're going to get into a question of better sources, where is something on British policy in this period to dispute this: http://www.stamp-act-history.com/stamp-act/1765-november-1-stamp-act/ ?

And looking up Fischer to get a better sense of what work he's done (American cultural history is not something I've studied very much) - he sounds like a great cultural historian, but that doesn't mean he's a good politician historian. Especially of British mid 18th century politics.

The man has also written books on the Federalist party and the Revolutionary war. He is no stranger to political history.

Stating one reason for doing something and not stating the other reason is pretty clearly not a good sign of there being an explicit purpose to do the other reason.

People can have multiple reasons for doing something. In this case, I think it's one reason for introducing new taxes, but an added reason for the rates on different things. It's like you can build a new railway for the reason of encouraging economic growth, but plan the route so it stops by certain towns for political reasons.

I'd also point out that parliament was a place for political debate and trying to get to a majority. If you're an arch-Tory like Lord North in a Whig majority chamber, you're going to voice the reasons that sound more reasonable to people minded in such a way and keep the other ones quiet.
 
The man has also written books on the Federalist party and the Revolutionary war. He is no stranger to political history.

British political history?

People can have multiple reasons for doing something. In this case, I think it's one reason for introducing new taxes, but an added reason for the rates on different things. It's like you can build a new railway for the reason of encouraging economic growth, but plan the route so it stops by certain towns for political reasons.

I'd also point out that parliament was a place for political debate and trying to get to a majority. If you're an arch-Tory like Lord North in a Whig majority chamber, you're going to voice the reasons that sound more reasonable to people minded in such a way and keep the other ones quiet.
I wasn't aware the Whigs were anti-mercantalist.
 
AIUI, the main reason that the Stamp and Navigation Acts pissed off the colonial elites is that they were enacted w/o consultation.

What nobody in the US gets is that the Seven-Years' War left the UK broke and reeling in many ways, especially in India but also in North America. The $$$ had to come from somewhere.

Parliament wasn't representative as we understand it now between the rotten boroughs, established constituencies, and property requirements for suffrage etc etc.

American colonists felt igonored and slighted. It didn't help that colonial militias didn't exactly cover themselves in glory except with the capture of Louisborg, which was given back to France.

For the Americans, we took a lot of casualties, then London taxed us and told us settling beyond the Appalachians was verboten 'cos London said so w/o explanation or any chance of affecting the debate in London.
Parliament and King George III told us to shut up and go away.

I agree with previous posters a more involved British government that
did more to promote colonial interests as British territory and treating us like British subjects or just heeded Ben Franklin's advice would've butterflied the ARW.

YMMV.
 
British political history?

If you're an expert on political history of the American colonies/states during the revolutionary period, than you'll know about British policy on the colonies, yes. I think anyone reading this debate will have made up their mind on this point, so I'm not going to comment on this historian's credibility as a source any longer.

I wasn't aware the Whigs were anti-mercantalist.

Read Edmund Burke's India bill.
 
Could you be a bit more specific on what that was?

It was an attempted reform of the East India Company that almost passed until the King blocked it. Burke felt that the economic and governmental system Bengal had been put under was exploitative and tyrannical, and had caused the drain of a rich country's wealth. The bill separated political control from the EIC and broke up the Company's monopolies.
 
It was an attempted reform of the East India Company that almost passed until the King blocked it. Burke felt that the economic and governmental system Bengal had been put under was exploitative and tyrannical, and had caused the drain of a rich country's wealth. The bill separated political control from the EIC and broke up the Company's monopolies.

Ah, this: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15198/15198-h/15198-h.htm#EAST_INDIA_BILL ?

I wasn't sure if you meant that or were referring to a bill of his own on what to do with India.
 
To be fair that demonstrates that Burke was against mercantiist policies not that all Whigs were.

Given that Whigs were in power for much of the period post the Navigation Acts it is difficult to say that the party as a whole was anti-mercantilist.
 
To be fair that demonstrates that Burke was against mercantiist policies not that all Whigs were.

Given that Whigs were in power for much of the period post the Navigation Acts it is difficult to say that the party as a whole was anti-mercantilist.

Of course, this was a period of "factions" rather than "parties", so there was a lot of jumbling. However, the India bill was strongly supported by Fox's faction, which was by far the largest group of Whigs at that point. I feel it's enough of a substantiation to show that there was a large enough body in parliament that was support of economic liberalization that anti-liberal economic reasons might want to be downplayed while building support in parliament.
 
Of course, this was a period of "factions" rather than "parties", so there was a lot of jumbling. However, the India bill was strongly supported by Fox's faction, which was by far the largest group of Whigs at that point. I feel it's enough of a substantiation to show that there was a large enough body in parliament that was support of economic liberalization that anti-liberal economic reasons might want to be downplayed while building support in parliament.

Being against the EIC's misrule of India and being in favor of mercantilism are hardly contradictory positions, though.
 
It was an attempted reform of the East India Company that almost passed until the King blocked it. Burke felt that the economic and governmental system Bengal had been put under was exploitative and tyrannical, and had caused the drain of a rich country's wealth. The bill separated political control from the EIC and broke up the Company's monopolies.

hmm... apparently, all the tax collectors with brains went to India, because the ones in the 13 colonies were an extraordinary collection of incompetents. It wasn't as if the colonies were totally tax and custom duty free, they did have some applied that were supposed to be collected to fund the running of the colonies. However, when you read the history behind the ARW, it's often noted that the tax and customs collectors were inept, and collected nowhere near what was owed; which is one of the reasons the Brits wanted to clamp down on the place. Record keeping was dismal, monies were unaccounted for in vast amounts, and the long shoreline of the east coast made smuggling easy as pie. Having been this way for generations, it's hardly surprising why a big chunk of the colonists were disgruntled by London's sudden crackdown... and that a couple of the important rebels were tax collectors who were being called to account for their shortages...
 
hmm... apparently, all the tax collectors with brains went to India, because the ones in the 13 colonies were an extraordinary collection of incompetents. It wasn't as if the colonies were totally tax and custom duty free, they did have some applied that were supposed to be collected to fund the running of the colonies. However, when you read the history behind the ARW, it's often noted that the tax and customs collectors were inept, and collected nowhere near what was owed; which is one of the reasons the Brits wanted to clamp down on the place.

Lots and lots of colonial bribery.
 
Top