British without American Revolution

Which one is Britain Stronger

  • Tolerate Townshend Acts

    Votes: 18 72.0%
  • Fends off Rebels and French

    Votes: 7 28.0%

  • Total voters
    25
I don't see what would cause the colonists to tolerate the Townshend Acts.

Well it's not the OTL outcome, the idea that people might be adverse to direct taxes but OK with import duties is plausible and IIRC happened in places before the Revolution and in Puerto Rico today (not that tariffs are high today anyways). Obviously it didn't happen, but in the first alternate TL I suggested, that's what happens. I wanted to know if the British Crown was in a stronger position if the colonists tolerated the Townsend Acts or crushed the rebellion after several years of destructive war. You seem to think the latter since the question of loyalty is answered.

the colonials aren't going to accept any taxes that are intended to send money to the mother country. Doesn't matter what lipstick you put on that pig.

Doesn't matter, that's OTL and the first POD is specially avoiding this issue. And Townsend didn't actually send money to Britain exactly, it was used to pay off some of the local expenses like courts, law enforcement (which was previously paid for by a mix of colonial and central government money, so it helps the bottom line while not sending money to Britain), but it was still a tax.

In the other scenario, France's fleet has been modernized/strengthened precisely with a conflict (same timeframe) with Britain in mind. It isn't likely to be destroyed so easily. Once, the French are piping money/ supplies

The French fleet was lacking in quality compared to their English counterparts. it's why the French sought to avoid a full drawn out naval battle in OTL and looked for opportunities to either do quick raids, or a local supremacy. Like trapping the British Army in Yorktown while a larger British fleet was 1-3 weeks away, twiddling their thumbs waiting for a task like... I don't know maybe beating the French Fleet and rescuing their army? They need to improve their communication. Anyways, if the British got their long drawn out pitched battle with the French, it's fairly likely going to be a lop sided in favor of the British, but the French would only give such a battle if they were dumb of caught the British in a problematic state, like after taking storm damage or out of provisions.

.

hmmm. make money and maintain control, or piss money away fighting a war/maintaining the peace afterwards. which one is best? It's a difficult decision, but I have to go with make money for 100, Alex.

That's what I think, but some people think the question of sovereignty and control are resvoeld with a crushed revolt. I personally think it's a very expensive price to pay... but a few before you disagree with me.

Long story short, North America and South America were basically open for the British to come in and buy what they wanted, with the added bonus of not needing to come in to fix things like they did in Africa and Asia, where many countries followed pleas of merchants to come in (might just be a clause bel) ending up with the British taxpayers forking out so that some companies get monopolies. Kind of the same in India, where the EIC got Redcoats and the Royal Navy occasnally backing them up, with the profits of getting to collect taxes in Bengal and various monopolies help the EIC buy or bribe MPs.

Isn't this OTL?

Personally I think that garrisoning North America is a distraction from India. India and Australia puts the British Empire in the best position. They should seek to make princely states in India, get the cotton and other cash crops growing, and get a Bread and Circus program, if for no other reason than famines being bad for publicity. Avoiding a rebellion, even if it was shorter and less costly than OTL, obviously frees up resources to do more productive things.
 
Isn't this OTL?
Indeed. I was going over how the British still profited from the US after independence, opened the path for dominions as it cut costs and risks, as well as.... well, the British had the money so they could buy stuff, with the dominions, Americans, and various independent states in the Americas collaborating. British got the open markets they wouldn't if... well, see previous posts for that, as I would probably be repeating myself.
 
Tbh, I think that a better approach to the problem to the Townshend Acts of OTL would be to change the objective. Don't try and raise revenues, but instead move the debt.

In this case, use the information/receipts/etc to calculate the cost of the war in the colonies. Before making any policy calls, start sending out propaganda to soften up the colonists. Something like "Stronger Together", etc. Perhaps roping in Franklin.

Then make a move to the Governors of every colony, stating that they have a year, in which time they need to organise a common assembly, or some sort of local institution to be responsible for the debt accrued for the colonies defence. (The exact number would probably be debated, but lets accommodate that).

Rope in Franklin who can be the proxy for the Crown and he can argue for an American Parliament - although that might require persuading him to argue for the case of half the costs of the British Forces in the Americas, in an attempt to recognise the costs incurred by the American local governments. It might be wiser to send someone who argues within a maximum remit of an American Parliament or hybrid of that gets the job done, with representatives of their interests sent to Westminster. (I dunno, say 20 that are divvied up in some way, to be arbitrary, rather than do the maths atm.)

If they refuse to organise, the debt as calculated would be marked against each state according to their size, in Londons financial houses, at which point they would each be liable for repayment.

Basically, "You pay half, and organise it, or we'll have it so British lenders consider you owners of these debts, and lend accordingly.

Not exactly a lovey dovey move - but we're not talking about being lovey dovey. Just what can the British get the Americans to accept in terms of the debts of the French Indian War. But you've got to send the propaganda, and make sure that the Colonies don't get to claim this is a burden on the people, but a contribution to the burdens taken up by Britain. Hard message to sell though.
 
It was Ben Franklin, speaking to Parliament.

He later admitted it wasn't one of his better moves.

I am a strong believer that a major cause of the Revolution was that Parliament barely heard any American voices, and so were excessively dependent on individual viewpoints that often did not reflect the broader American mentality. I think the best approach for avoiding it is Pitt's plans to give colonial representation in parliament just to get the dialogue going.
 
Giving colonial representation is demographic suicide unless the crown is stronger (which is another problem... at this point royal power either weakens or is maintained, but no longer can reclaim lost powers)
 
Top