Taxation with Representation

[Derek Jackson]

Is there any chance that the then colonies would have accepted a compromise on the lines of the Colonies having Parliamentary seats in the British Parliament- I guess treating each state as a County and treating bigger cities- Boston, Philadelphia, New York, Baltimore as boroughs?

Could that have been sold to a British government- perhaps with George III not having been born?

If this happened in the 1770s would there be demands for independence from Colonies by White Colonist either in the 1800s when the UK abolished the Slave Trade or in 1833 when it abolished slavery.

Would there still have been a North South divide on the slavery issue by the 1830s?

Would Canada exist in its current form or all British New World Colonies be treated similarly?

 

[NapoleonXIV]

The residents of Britain were paying approximately 25 times the taxes of the Colonists at the start of the Revolution.

One of the negotiators with the British in France was given instructions to very definitely NOT accept any kind of representation deal, as the Colonists simply could not afford taxes even close to equivalent with Britain's.

Unfortunately, I can't give a source for this, but I am pretty sure of it. What it seems to mean was that the Battle cry should have been simply "No Taxation" rather than NTWR

 

[Brilliantlight]

The residents of Britain were paying approximately 25 times the taxes of the Colonists at the start of the Revolution.

One of the negotiators with the British in France was given instructions to very definitely NOT accept any kind of representation deal, as the Colonists simply could not afford taxes even close to equivalent with Britain's.

Unfortunately, I can't give a source for this, but I am pretty sure of it. What it seems to mean was that the Battle cry should have been simply "No Taxation" rather than NTWR

Besides with the big ocean in between US and GB it was impossible at the time.

 

[Paul Spring]

The people in Britain were paying far more British taxes than the colonists, but the colonists were already paying taxes to their colonial governments. Having to pay taxes to the British as well was a sort of double-taxation. While the actual taxes were low, I think colonial leaders were mainly worried about the precedent. Once governments raise taxes a little and see that there's no protest, they generally keep raising them more and more.

 

[Faeelin]

And while it's true that American taxes were lower, and that they were the richest people per capita on the planet at the time, the colonies were screwed by British law. Couldn't manufacture items legally, for instance.

 

[Brilliantlight]

And while it's true that American taxes were lower, and that they were the richest people per capita on the planet at the time, the colonies were screwed by British law. Couldn't manufacture items legally, for instance.

American colonists were the richest people on the planet in the 1770s? I didn't know that, are you sure?

 

[Farnham]

American colonists were the richest people on the planet in the 1770s? I didn't know that, are you sure?

I'm not sure if we were the richest people on the planet, but I have read that the standard of living of the average American was certainly equal to that of the average European, if not a bit better.

 

[Faeelin]

American colonists were the richest people on the planet in the 1770s? I didn't know that, are you sure?

I've seen it quoted way too many times. Ferguson makes reference to it, as does 1776: Year of Illusions .

Per capita. There were few, if any, as rich as English lords, but there were few who lived like the inhabitants of the slums of London.

 

[Brilliantlight]

I've seen it quoted way too many times. Ferguson makes reference to it, as does 1776: Year of Illusions .

Per capita. There were few, if any, as rich as English lords, but there were few who lived like the inhabitants of the slums of London.

Sorry I forgot to add per capita but that is a very quick rise in per capita income.

 

[Matthew Craw]

And while it's true that American taxes were lower, and that they were the richest people per capita on the planet at the time, the colonies were screwed by British law. Couldn't manufacture items legally, for instance.

That would probably have come as a surprise to workers in New England's thriving shipbuilding industry, or those ijn sugar refineries and rum distilleries. The mercantililst system did not impose much real restraint on colonial industry, industries that emerged naturally in the colonies (such as those above) won recognition and legality, those that remained banned probably wouldn't have emerged anyway ue to capital and labour shortages, and a restricted local market. Moreover, the system also imposed restrictions on Britons, they couldn't grow tobacco, for instance, to see it as a straightforward case of british exploitation of the colonies is rahter simple-minded.

 

[Straha]

hey guys join the fun on the chat forum because today is Armageddon!

 

[MerryPrankster]

I think after Lexington and Concord, there was a last-ditch plan where the colonial governments would raise taxes @ Parliament's demand, but at that point things had gone too far.

Perhaps the POD could be that this is accepted (probably with a liberal spread of pardons too). The immediate problems are resolved, but stuff could crop up down the road (perhaps the perception grows that the colonial gov'ts were puppets of London).