Once the British decide that the colonies should have some form of self-government, it would largely be left up to the colonists to decide the structure that would take. Britain would be interested in only one or two things like making the colonies pay for their own defence and ensuring that any structure would not be inherently unstable.
What is interesting to me is why these colonial conferences mentioned did not amount to more. Britain obviously supported these first attempts at colonial self-rule. The most obvious stumbling block would be the colonies paying for the British army and RN contingents stationed in North America. This problem of financial impost could easily be solved by having local commanders answerable to their colonial executive and therefore it would not be seen as a load to bear but rather an expression of self determination. There would be no need to station British Army regulars in North America but rather ‘American’ units commanded by local officers and staffed by local recruits would exist. Even if the British insisted on appointing the higher officers to command these units, this demand would eventually fade away.
In terms of the structure of any self-governing units, I would expect that the interests of the colonies in the north would be different to those in the south and so I envisage at least two Federations. Their political organizations would be similar to the extent that the colonial organizations were similar between the southern colonies and their northern counterparts. Were there any significant differences?
As these two federated polities would be similar in structure and would share a common attachment through Britain, the political and cultural forces would eventually lead to closer cooperation between the two on matters like defence and customs but perhaps draw them apart on issues like slavery and international relations. The southern states would be in proximity to outposts of foreign powers like France and Spain while the northern ones would have only Native Americans to deal with.
Expansion was I understand common to the north and south. Plenty of opportunity here for both cooperation and competition between the new federations. Again if there are only two federated states, then this tension will be manageable as long as there is goodwill on both sides. If there are many political units, the conflicting interests could lead to tensions. Any sign of chaos on the continent would see British intervention, diplomatic of course, to attempt to resolve it. This in itself could be destabilizing so the political forces at work would tend to favour greater centralization and fewer independent states.
What is interesting to me is why these colonial conferences mentioned did not amount to more. Britain obviously supported these first attempts at colonial self-rule. The most obvious stumbling block would be the colonies paying for the British army and RN contingents stationed in North America. This problem of financial impost could easily be solved by having local commanders answerable to their colonial executive and therefore it would not be seen as a load to bear but rather an expression of self determination. There would be no need to station British Army regulars in North America but rather ‘American’ units commanded by local officers and staffed by local recruits would exist. Even if the British insisted on appointing the higher officers to command these units, this demand would eventually fade away.
In terms of the structure of any self-governing units, I would expect that the interests of the colonies in the north would be different to those in the south and so I envisage at least two Federations. Their political organizations would be similar to the extent that the colonial organizations were similar between the southern colonies and their northern counterparts. Were there any significant differences?
As these two federated polities would be similar in structure and would share a common attachment through Britain, the political and cultural forces would eventually lead to closer cooperation between the two on matters like defence and customs but perhaps draw them apart on issues like slavery and international relations. The southern states would be in proximity to outposts of foreign powers like France and Spain while the northern ones would have only Native Americans to deal with.
Expansion was I understand common to the north and south. Plenty of opportunity here for both cooperation and competition between the new federations. Again if there are only two federated states, then this tension will be manageable as long as there is goodwill on both sides. If there are many political units, the conflicting interests could lead to tensions. Any sign of chaos on the continent would see British intervention, diplomatic of course, to attempt to resolve it. This in itself could be destabilizing so the political forces at work would tend to favour greater centralization and fewer independent states.