WI: United Irishmen are successful?

archaeogeek

Banned
Let's see. Britain wanted the colonies to make a small contribution to their defence. What was asked was to pay for part of the small infantry contribution, or raise their own forces to do it. The bulk of the protection would still de-facto be done by the RN.

Instead the rebels decided on a long and bloody civil war which hampered the country with serious debts. So that they could afterwards pay the entire costs of their defences. This also cost them access to British markets and the protection of the RN for their merchant fleets.

Economically not a good idea for the bulk of the population. Bit it did enable some elites to gain further political power and local economic advantage.;)

Steve

The colonies paid for their defence by way of militias; the fact that you cling on that myth that the colonies were freeloading on Britain invalidates the rest of your argument.
 
Last edited:
They Lost An Empire!

usertron2020

Do I detect a slight bias here?;) There were skilled leaders on both sides and it's pretty clear that many of the rebels were out for their own political and economic gains. America would have been better off economically by compromising with Britain rather than waging a war to accommodate vested interests.

Steve

No bias. The North Government had one solid, competent minister. The Earl of Sandwich, First Lord of the Admiralty. While most everything else in the Empire was woefully unprepared for war, the Royal Navy was at least in half-way decent shape. How it was handled was another matter.:( The other ministers?:p And if you mention Lord George Germain, I will reach into this computer and hit you with a spitball!

To compromise you need BOTH sides to compromise. In the 1760s & 1770s George III still had considerable influence over what was done in government. He wanted submission, not compromise. Yes, the Whigs wanted to make deals, but the Tories most certainly did not.

Of course there were vested interests in America wishing a war between the Colonies and Britain. What you fail to remember is that the Tories in Parliament were not exactly upset at the prospects of the gains (booty) to be had in crushing a colonial rebellion.:eek::D

The First British Empire wasn't stolen by the likes of Samuel Adams, John Hancock, or even John Adams. It was LOST by the likes of George III, Lord North, and Germain.
 
Let's see. Britain wanted the colonies to make a small contribution to their defence. What was asked was to pay for part of the small infantry contribution, or raise their own forces to do it. The bulk of the protection would still de-facto be done by the RN.

Instead the rebels decided on a long and bloody civil war which hampered the country with serious debts. So that they could afterwards pay the entire costs of their defences. This also cost them access to British markets and the protection of the RN for their merchant fleets.

Economically not a good idea for the bulk of the population. Bit it did enable some elites to gain further political power and local economic advantage.;)

Steve

stevep

I'm afraid you've been victimized by a slightly biased education.:eek: I've read many a British history on the ARW, and there are a few facts that many will studiously ignore. The colonies were at the time a growing, but still third world environment. Many of the laws that existed in the Colonies set forth by Parliament strangled colonial trade, but were ignored to help in the growth of the Colonies and British companies as well (rum, molasses, and slaves). This went on from the founding of the colonies until 1763.

1763 is a very important date in American history, and it's not because the whole country suddenly found the urge to listen to a bunch of rabble-rousers calling themselves the "Sons of Liberty". It was in that year the Seven Years War ended. The feeling came about that, as the war had largely passed the colonies (except in the interior), that the colonialists had not paid their "fair share" of the War Debt. That was a political matter and whether true or not could be argued till Doomsday.

But for the first time large garrisons would be placed in the colonies to:

1) Defend them from foreign attack
2) Keep a eye on the settlers.

The Americans didn't feel they needed the troops there as the threat from France had gone from slight to remote. And nobody was fooled that the second reason wasn't true. The orders had gone out w/o consideration for the fact that the colonies had no permanent military tradition, so no installations, no barracks, no place to put the troops except in private homes (Third Amendment:D).

The problem was, in 1763 orders were sent out for the RIGID ENFORCEMENT OF THE ANTI-SMUGGLING LAWS. This caused such a massive imbalance of trade between the colonies and Great Britain (in Britain's favor), that by the end of 1765 every last conceivable debt the colonies could have ever "owed" was already paid off, leaving the economy of the colonies in a deep depression. Paging Sam Adams.

The problem with all this was the money was flowing into the hands of private British commerce, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. So as far as they were concerned, they hadn't seen a farthing. You can imagine what it was like for Americans in 1766 being told they had to "pay up".:mad: So yes, in the strictest sense possible, the Americans hadn't "paid their share" to the government. But they sure paid their share to British commercial interests.:rolleyes:

The long bloody civil war did saddle us with great debts, which we paid off. BTW, the need to defend our merchant marine forced us to develop a navy for ourselves, ultimately to go to war (one of the reasons) so those merchant seaman would not be carried off into slavery by Arab pirates (and Christian ones). It also kept us out of the Napoleonic Wars and put us in a position to buy Louisiana. Not bad, and I'm only up to 1842 (When the debts were paid off).

All wars have war-profiteers, and war-mongers. They come out in a war like thieves robbing the dead after a battle. The Opposition made enormous political advantage from North's fall, but I begrudge them nothing. If they had been listened to, starting in 1763, Britannia could well be ruling the world to this day, beyond even the dreams of you-know-who.:)
 
usertron2020

OK I was being a bit sarkly before;) and you do raise a point that a lot of the tension was because of attempts to collect dues on imports, which had been largely ignored before. However how does customs dues end up in private hands rather than the government ones their being paid for?

There were restrictions on the colonies, such as the ban on iron manufacturing, although how complete that was is unclear. However they also benefited from membership of the empire, including being behind the tariff walls of the time and getting RN protection for it's trade. Surely it's wrong that the colonists should pay nothing towards this when the home country was so heavily burdened by war debts, much of what was due to the colonial defence, in America and elsewhere.

It may be that the ideas of another century would have worked better but this was the late 18thC. The system in Britain was far more liberal and honest than anywhere else you're likely to find in Europe or elsewhere at the time. [Even then I suspect Disraeli wouldn't have given you everything you hoped for.

On the question of defence some was needed. Not only was there concern that the French might rebel, which only really ended when the founding of the US gave the Quebecois strong motive to be loyal to Britain. This is just after the Pontiac rebellion which had caused a nasty shock and a lot of deaths. The Proclamation of 1763 did something to reassure the Indians but at the cost of angering the settlers who wanted unbridled expansion.

I would agree that George III, especially at that time wasn't the best choice for monarch in that position and there was a lot of corruption and incompetence in the government. However there was a hell of a lot of dishonesty in the 'rebel' cause as well and I suspect a number of the leaders were not dealing in good faith as they never wanted a compromise settlement. [Think of the old lie about 'no tax without representation' as the most obvious case].

Steve

PS - we're probably hi-jacking the thread a bit as its getting rather off the original point.


stevep

I'm afraid you've been victimized by a slightly biased education.:eek: I've read many a British history on the ARW, and there are a few facts that many will studiously ignore. The colonies were at the time a growing, but still third world environment. Many of the laws that existed in the Colonies set forth by Parliament strangled colonial trade, but were ignored to help in the growth of the Colonies and British companies as well (rum, molasses, and slaves). This went on from the founding of the colonies until 1763.

1763 is a very important date in American history, and it's not because the whole country suddenly found the urge to listen to a bunch of rabble-rousers calling themselves the "Sons of Liberty". It was in that year the Seven Years War ended. The feeling came about that, as the war had largely passed the colonies (except in the interior), that the colonialists had not paid their "fair share" of the War Debt. That was a political matter and whether true or not could be argued till Doomsday.

But for the first time large garrisons would be placed in the colonies to:

1) Defend them from foreign attack
2) Keep a eye on the settlers.

The Americans didn't feel they needed the troops there as the threat from France had gone from slight to remote. And nobody was fooled that the second reason wasn't true. The orders had gone out w/o consideration for the fact that the colonies had no permanent military tradition, so no installations, no barracks, no place to put the troops except in private homes (Third Amendment:D).

The problem was, in 1763 orders were sent out for the RIGID ENFORCEMENT OF THE ANTI-SMUGGLING LAWS. This caused such a massive imbalance of trade between the colonies and Great Britain (in Britain's favor), that by the end of 1765 every last conceivable debt the colonies could have ever "owed" was already paid off, leaving the economy of the colonies in a deep depression. Paging Sam Adams.

The problem with all this was the money was flowing into the hands of private British commerce, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. So as far as they were concerned, they hadn't seen a farthing. You can imagine what it was like for Americans in 1766 being told they had to "pay up".:mad: So yes, in the strictest sense possible, the Americans hadn't "paid their share" to the government. But they sure paid their share to British commercial interests.:rolleyes:

The long bloody civil war did saddle us with great debts, which we paid off. BTW, the need to defend our merchant marine forced us to develop a navy for ourselves, ultimately to go to war (one of the reasons) so those merchant seaman would not be carried off into slavery by Arab pirates (and Christian ones). It also kept us out of the Napoleonic Wars and put us in a position to buy Louisiana. Not bad, and I'm only up to 1842 (When the debts were paid off).

All wars have war-profiteers, and war-mongers. They come out in a war like thieves robbing the dead after a battle. The Opposition made enormous political advantage from North's fall, but I begrudge them nothing. If they had been listened to, starting in 1763, Britannia could well be ruling the world to this day, beyond even the dreams of you-know-who.:)
 
Top