What if The King of England had read the Olive Branch Petition and had negiotated with the colonists in 1775, to end the revolution?
WI the Olive Branch Petition was successful in 1775?
- Thread starter Creightonw
- Start date
umm if he had read he would have never accepted the deal what had started as attempt to peae had turned into a declaration of war or close to ti
King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland*
"Give us everything we want or we rise up" is not an actual olive branch.
"Give us everything we want or we rise up" is not an actual olive branch.
The British tried that actually with the Carlisle Peace Commission, albeit much later than 1775. I've tried to discuss it before albeit a couple years ago now. The Carlisle Peace Commission was authorized by George III to give the colonies everything they wanted including representation in Parliament, one key issue though was they were sent in 1778, and by then the colonies demanded the one thing the commission wasn't authorized to grant; full independence.
\once again this was not an olive grant petion by this point there was no way to avoid war and there propsal let us be a free country but techinally be your vassla
I am not well versed on this issue, so could someone try to explain this? This specific petition aside, why was it unacceptable for the colonies to send representatives to the House of Commons? Yes, I know the neither Parliament nor the colonial legislatures were really all that democratic, but evidently this did matter to certain (wealthy) people.
Also why would independence in itself have been unacceptable to the monarchy? European royals were obviously no strangers to personal/dynastic unions.
Also why would independence in itself have been unacceptable to the monarchy? European royals were obviously no strangers to personal/dynastic unions.
So, is the OP interested in abstracting away from the precise thing of that name in OTL history and postulating a more genuinely conciliatory offer from Colonials who joined the Patriots ultimately OTL? Any such offer walks a tightrope between being adequately give along with take for Parliament and Crown to take it seriously versus losing so much support in America that it just blends into the background noise of American Loyalists aka "Tories" OTL.
It would help to specify just which petition you are talking about and link to a description, and then specify what modifications would square the circle of giving the British imperials satisfaction in their goals while gratifying American interests well enough to defuse the Revolutionary coalition. Greater success in the latter means no rebellion beyond grumbling and carping, medium success has overt rebellion breaking out in New England but lacking enough support to avoid being successfully repressed, bearing in mind the need to repress it would make the British negotiators more demanding and hardnosed, particularly once they have demonstrated their ability to quash an actual rising.
It would help to specify just which petition you are talking about and link to a description, and then specify what modifications would square the circle of giving the British imperials satisfaction in their goals while gratifying American interests well enough to defuse the Revolutionary coalition. Greater success in the latter means no rebellion beyond grumbling and carping, medium success has overt rebellion breaking out in New England but lacking enough support to avoid being successfully repressed, bearing in mind the need to repress it would make the British negotiators more demanding and hardnosed, particularly once they have demonstrated their ability to quash an actual rising.
Not for a couple decades yet--George III was still King of Great Britain and King of Ireland as separate titles at this point.
The thirteen colonies had been pretty openly in rebellion since 1774, not 1775, and the British were pretty patient in not declaring this (which they did in mid-1775). But there was resistance from the Patriots in making it official, but they needed to do that to get French support. Both of this are pretty typical of rebellions.
Anyway for PR purposes, the Patriots in 1775 announced that they would be willing to recognize the sovereignty of the King (not Parliament, which itself was a non-starter for George III) on their terms, but the terms were pretty useless for Westminster, since if they agreed they could neither tax nor legislate for the colonies.
Anyway for PR purposes, the Patriots in 1775 announced that they would be willing to recognize the sovereignty of the King (not Parliament, which itself was a non-starter for George III) on their terms, but the terms were pretty useless for Westminster, since if they agreed they could neither tax nor legislate for the colonies.
So, basically, what we would need is a King who would see this as perhaps a useful tool to undermine Westminster and regain some lost powers?
Colonial parliamentary representation wasn't particularly unacceptable to either side. There was historic precedent given Calais had previously sent MPs to the Commons and Pitt the Elder actually drafted two plans for this to happen (one including Ireland). The concerns were that the Tory landed gentry did not want to dilute their power or commercial advantages and the colonists worried that American MPs would strengthen the case for Westminster's complete supremacy over the colonial assemblies. The main issue was that it didn't actually solve the core of the dispute, initially over taxes but later over autocratic abuses.
As for your second question, the British monarchy did not have free agency here as the bulk of its power had been lost to parliament in 1688 and 1715. Parliament would have been fiercely against such personal union as a) they regarded the colonies as their possession and b) monarchs have a tendency to play off realms against each other - this is what started the civil war after all.
Such a King wouldn't remain a King very long. Frankly any POD after the closing of the Port of Boston is too late for reconciliation.
There were American MPs, elected from English constituencies, and the colonists also had very effective lobbyists such as Franklin, so the representation in the Commons thing is really a red herring.