George III visits America - Effect on Revolution

The ARW wasn't solely about taxes or solely about representation... it's more a matter of self rule. The main cause of the ARW was not a single event, but a long history of benign neglect by the home government. Essentially, London didn't bother the colonists much for a long time, other than foisting a series of hapless governors on them who also didn't bother the colonists much. There were already taxes and customs duties in place, but neither the governors nor London bothered much to make sure they were actually gathered or accounted for (a couple of the Founding Fathers were actually royal tax collectors or customs officials who proved unable to account for the funds they were supposed to have collected). Smuggling in the colonies was rampant, mainly to avoid customs. The colonies pretty much ran their own affairs without deferring to London. Essentially, the colonies were practically independent before the ARW, in their own minds. A long history of going west, expanding the frontier, and being self reliant (especially in the face of French and Indian raiders) had made the colonists rather independent in spirit already. The ARW wasn't all that much of a surprise to a lot of people; several in England and France predicted it (most famously, Count Vergennes). What prompted the ARW more than anything was the idea that Britain would suddenly be actually running the colonies directly, and collecting all those taxes and customs that they'd been avoiding for so long.
So, to get back to the POD, it would take more than a visit by the king to avoid the ARW; you'd have to go back to the very beginnings of the colonies and have the home government run things more directly from the start...
 
The American colonists had been in North America since the early 17th century. For a century and a half they fought native peoples and various foreign enemies, and had done a very good job not only defending themselves, but expanding their territory. The British didn't offer troops to fight King Philips War. They weren't there in force during the three previous Anglo-French Wars. During the fourth war the only major rival in North America is decisively defeated. Then the British forbid immigration over the 1763 line, so that there wouldn't be conflict with native peoples. The French were gone and the possibility of further conflicts with native peoples severely minimized. Where was a threat that the American colonists couldn't deal with themselves?

This isn't entirely true. While colonial militia usually had little problem dealing with Indian raids and counter-raids, they needed an anchor of Red-coats in order to not lose to the French. Once the French were gone, though, no such worry existed.
 
The Colonial taxes are way overblown in American mentality. They were very lenient and relatively small, and extremely little compared to how much the citizens of Britain were paying in taxes at the time. They were likewise to pay for the troops necessary to defend the colonies. Its just that the Americans had never really paid taxes so they went crazy when Britain said they needed to pay some.

The taxes themselves were not the problem, it's what they symbolized that was the problem. The fact that Parliment could levy taxes and legislate on the colonies with no representation from the colonies. That was the problem.

EDIT: I've since read the rest of the thread and seen that my point has already been made.
 
Last edited:
The taxes themselves were not the problem, it's what they symbolized that was the problem. The fact that Parliment could levy taxes and legislate on the colonies with no representation from the colonies. That was the problem.

Representation was only minutely cared about in the grand scheme. I have said this too many times, the colonists (at least the leaders and learned colonists) did not care about representation in parliament outside of perhaps some mild interest and an interest not anchored to taxation. The Colonists overall didn't really care how they were taxed, they cared that they were taxed. They existed for centuries under British rule and legislation, didn't grumble about it during or after salutatory neglect (well, outside of the taxation and economic legislation), but what set them off was taxation and economic legislation in and of themselves. The leaders and propagandists knew representation was a useless venture if meant to solve anything and not just be a symbol. All it would lead to was a very tiny minority against a mass majority who would rule against anything strictly Pro-American, Pro-Colonial if parliamentary members didn't think it was right already. The taxes themselves were the problem. There existed a Colonial identity and culture and a distinction from the homeland and an interest in more self governance, but that did not set off the rebellion and the Colonies could have remained under British rule with that. Those things lent to the fact that a rebellion was set off, but taxation and to a lesser degree other economic legislation (such as the Navigation acts) did set off the rebellion and taxation was the key problem and issue to the Colonists.
 
Last edited:
They were being taxed without the requisite representation in parliament that Englishmen had fought a civil war over in the century before

You mean that Parliament which less than 7% of men had the ability to vote for, and then only one chamber, a chamber which in any case was dominated by the sons and associates of the members of the second one? The Commons, that great body of representation, which drew on constituencies which had as many as eight electors electing two MPs?

I appreciate that the colonists felt they were being unfairly treated, but to suggest that they were being denied some sort of set of political rights which their fellows at home had is untrue. Colonial landholders didn't have the same political power as British subjects that their fellows back at home did, but the average middle-class American probably had a much better time politically than those back at home did.

If the colonists had had the exact same political rights as mainland British subjects, then more than 90% of them wouldn't have had any. None. This would have probably been a marked reducation in their freedom. Where this sets the whole 'taxation without representation' debate I don't know, but taking that argument at face value seems more than a little spurious to me. Either the main concern was financial, or the colonists were (consciously or uncounsciously) fighting for an awful lot more than 'taxation with representation' from the start.
 
Either the main concern was financial, or the colonists were (consciously or uncounsciously) fighting for an awful lot more than 'taxation with representation' from the start.

It's very interesting, if you read the rhetoric from the day. You get the impression that the Americans and British are, in some ways, talking past each other.
 
Representation was only minutely cared about in the grand scheme. I have said this too many times, the colonists (at least the leaders and learned colonists) did not care about representation in parliament outside of perhaps some mild interest and an interest not anchored to taxation. The Colonists overall didn't really care how they were taxed, they cared that they were taxed. They existed for centuries under British rule and legislation, didn't grumble about it during or after salutatory neglect (well, outside of the taxation and economic legislation), but what set them off was taxation and economic legislation in and of themselves. The leaders and propagandists knew representation was a useless venture if meant to solve anything and not just be a symbol. All it would lead to was a very tiny minority against a mass majority who would rule against anything strictly Pro-American, Pro-Colonial if parliamentary members didn't think it was right already. The taxes themselves were the problem. There existed a Colonial identity and culture and a distinction from the homeland and an interest in more self governance, but that did not set off the rebellion and the Colonies could have remained under British rule with that. Those things lent to the fact that a rebellion was set off, but taxation and to a lesser degree other economic legislation (such as the Navigation acts) did set off the rebellion and taxation was the key problem and issue to the Colonists.

The differences in how the Americans and British viewed their electoral systems caused many of the later disagreements. The British saw the Parliament as universal, as having sovereignty over the whole British Empire. The Americans saw it as the legislature of Britain, and as the American colonies were not part of Britain, but rather direct Crown colonies, the Parliament had no writ in the American colonies. So because the Americans didn't vote for the British Parliament, it had no authority in their colonies. If you use this model, the American complaints about taxation make sense, and so does the tin-eared response of the British.

This also explains why the British attempted to use a system of indirect taxation, since it was believed that this would be less offensive to the colonists, since the Parliament would be taxing goods and not individuals. But taxes were taxes and this was also rejected. The alternative that was never tried was a levying of Imperial tariffs on British shipping. Tariffs are not taxes, and the American acknowledged the Parliament's right to legislate in matters pertaining to Imperial territory. So tariffs, collected as part of a reformatted Navigation Acts, could have worked, with tariffs collected at American harbors. Certain goods (tea for instance) would need to have a tariff paid. Levy the tariff on goods the Americans need from the UK, and you've got yourself a revenue source that everyone can live with.
 
Last edited:
The differences in how the Americans and British viewed their electoral systems caused many of the later disagreements. The British saw the Parliament as universal, as having sovereignty over the whole British Empire. The Americans saw it as the legislature of Britain, and as the American colonies were not part of Britain, but rather direct Crown colonies, the Parliament had no writ in the American colonies. So because the Americans didn't vote for the British Parliament, it had no authority in their colonies. If you use this model, the American complaints about taxation make sense, and so does the tin-eared response of the British.

This also explains why the British attempted to use a system of indirect taxation, since it was believed that this would be less offensive to the colonists, since the Parliament would be taxing goods and not individuals. But taxes were taxes and this was also rejected. The alternative that was never tried was a levying of Imperial tariffs on British shipping. Tariffs are not taxes, and the American acknowledged the Parliament's right to legislate in matters pertaining to Imperial territory. So tariffs, collected as part of a reformatted Navigation Acts, could have worked, with tariffs collected at American harbors. Certain goods (tea for instance) would need to have a tariff paid. Levy the tariff on goods the Americans need from the UK, and you've got yourself a revenue source that everyone can live with.

I'm not so sure about that. Another one of the factors was that the Colonists were tired of only being able to trade with Britain. The fact that they'd have to pay a levy is likely to piss them off as well, don't ya think?
 
I'm not so sure about that. Another one of the factors was that the Colonists were tired of only being able to trade with Britain.

which they got around fairly easily by rampant smuggling. What prompted the ARW as much as anything was not so much the new taxes and regulations alone, it was the combination of the new taxes and regulations, and that the Brits were actually going to collect the taxes that were already existing (and rarely collected), and enforce the existing regulations on trade (which were widely ignored).
 
You mean that Parliament which less than 7% of men had the ability to vote for, and then only one chamber, a chamber which in any case was dominated by the sons and associates of the members of the second one? The Commons, that great body of representation, which drew on constituencies which had as many as eight electors electing two MPs?

I appreciate that the colonists felt they were being unfairly treated, but to suggest that they were being denied some sort of set of political rights which their fellows at home had is untrue. Colonial landholders didn't have the same political power as British subjects that their fellows back at home did, but the average middle-class American probably had a much better time politically than those back at home did.

If the colonists had had the exact same political rights as mainland British subjects, then more than 90% of them wouldn't have had any. None. This would have probably been a marked reducation in their freedom. Where this sets the whole 'taxation without representation' debate I don't know, but taking that argument at face value seems more than a little spurious to me. Either the main concern was financial, or the colonists were (consciously or uncounsciously) fighting for an awful lot more than 'taxation with representation' from the start.
So what does a visit from George III do?

What does it look like? Where does George III visit?

Clearly George is going to be wined and dined by the colonial elite, and those men are also the leaders of their colonial assemblies. He is going to speak to them about what is going on in the Empire. And just maybe the clear gap of understanding between the Americans and British about how Parliament works might be bridged, or least narrowed somewhat.

The King is going to observe that the franchise in the Americas is much wider than it is in Britain, owing to the fact that a far higher percentage of Americans are land-owners. He will also see slavery for the first time.

This experience will no doubt have an effect on both the Americans and the King. The King will have other people from the UK with him, possibly MPs and Lords, and reports of his journey through the American colonies- what he sees, who he sees, what he does- will be widely available.

I think that this visit will provoke a discussion on both sides of the Atlantic about what exactly the relationship between the colonies and the Crown is. This hypothetical trip is going to be the largest meeting between colonial and metropolitan Britons that has ever taken place, and it will take place less than a 20 years before OTL American Revolutionary War takes place.

This trip could go very far to getting rid of incorrect assumptions that both the British and Americans made on the way toward the ARW.
 
Top