Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-11-2015, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Maryland about 20 miles NW of DC
6,104 posts, read 5,990,126 times
Reputation: 2479

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
I suspect something different. English history through the 1689 Glorious Revolution was chaotic. The various monarchies, and Cromwell, had little time for or interest in the colonies. Thus there was benign neglect. The English settlers also knew how to run an election and were used to governing themselves.

When the monarchy was stabilized with the Glorious Revolution the British footprint grew heavier. Also the colonies were more affluent than Mother England. England always was starved for money. That need grew further with the Seven Years, or French and Indian Wars. No one likes to be taxed and the colonists were unhappy to oblige.
The Glorious Revolution hardly stabilized the British monarchy it beheaded it though! The Monarchy was put on its modern footing with the Restoration in 1660 due to Lord Protector Cromwell having the good sense not to accept the vacant British Crown and his son followed suit on his passing. The government that parliament created when King Charles I was beheaded and Crown Prince Charles fled to Europe for his life was called the Commonwealth and its leader was Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell was quite interested in Britain's overseas colonies and that is reflected in his amending some royal charters to reflect the new world that Englishmen found themselves. This is why we still have a Commonwealth of Virginia, a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and a Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We are not like the Spanish part of the Americas because the Glorious Revolution created the Parliamentary form of Government where Parliament (legislature) was superior not the monarch (or in our case President) . After the Restoration, British Monarchs were the symbol of the British state, head of the Established Church of England and Scotland not its rulers which were found in Parliament. When America rebelled against The British Crown they were really rebelling against The British Parliament and its leader Prime Minister Lord North. Lord North called the shots, selected military strategy selected military commanders and admirals not King George III. When things turned into a costly fiasco it cost Lord North who was voted out at the next election. King George III didn't lose his head and continued on the British throne until 1820. But by 1800 he became mentally ill and the Crown Prince George served as Regent until he became King George IV in 1820.

By the mid 18th century Britain was not starved for money. Britain had created what we call modern finance , the limited liability company, the idea of insurance and re-insurance, the stock market and The idea of Reserve Banking via the Bank of England. Britain invented the Steam Engine, machine tools, water pumps and the factory. They had improved metallurgy and the Bessemer process for steel and used coal not wood to power it all. Britain was in the throws of the Industrial Revolution. The Americans wouldn't catch up to Britain for another 75 years. Unfortunately Britons are tightwads and felt the colonies should pay Britain for their defense and the idea of industrialized warfare fortunately was nearly a century in the future. Britain had an army little changed in weapons and tactics from when the Duke of Marlbourgh was their commander at Blenheim in the late 17th century. The Royal Army still used the same guns and cannons. The Americans had the rifled barrel gun (The famous Pennsylvania Rifles) before it was issued to British troops after the Revolutionary War.

Britain didn't lose much letting the Yanks go their separate ways. They still dominated trade with and finance (The freedom of Britons to do business in the former colonies and keep private property of Britons was in the Treaty of Paris) in the new United States (Britain invested in the USA like we are doing today in China and the 3rd world) and kept the best parts of the Americas for themselves Canada (Hudson's Bay Co and fur trade plus the fishing on the Grand Banks) and the West Indies and the Sugar and Rum which they still sold to Americans . Britain turned its attention to a much more glittering prize India and East Asia plus grabbing the places Captain Cook found in the Pacific (Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii and the Pacific Northwest of America).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-12-2015, 11:46 AM
 
Location: New York Area
35,062 posts, read 17,006,525 times
Reputation: 30211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
I think that the one thing which could have prevented the revolution, or at least delayed it for a significant amount of time, would have been for Great Britain to have elevated the colonies to commonwealth status.

It is instructive that from 1763 through 1775, the colonial quarrel was with Parliament, not the crown. It was only after they learned that George was siding with Parliament and taking a hard line that venom began to be directed at the King. The Declaration represented an extremely rapid turnaround regarding perceptions of George. He became an overnight tyrant and seemingly solely responsible for that which had outraged the colonials.

Before that there was a window of possible reconciliation because the colonials still viewed themselves as good Englishmen, loyal subjects of what was assumed to be a benevolent monarch.

What America wanted was to have their own parliament with the same relation to George as was enjoyed by the British assembly. That was why they so strongly resisted the taxes, not because any of them were especially burdensome. If the colonials agreed to pay those taxes, it was an acknowledgement of Parliament's authority over them.

Consequently, the granting of commonwealth status would have sustained the close relationship by undercutting the primary reason for the tax revolt in New England.

I admit that given the mindset of the British at this time, there was no chance that they would considered such an idea. Their attitude was that of an angry parent dealing with a willful and defiant child. They not only wanted to get their way, they wanted to teach the upstarts a lesson about disobedience.

Of course that path did not work out very well for them. By insisting on absolute authority, they lost all authority over their North American colonies.
I think you mean "Dominion" status. That started as a result of the American Revolution and worked well with Canada. Preceding Dominion Status for most of the provinces was "responsible government" which started around 1839-41 and continued until 1867 when Dominion status was granted.

I assume that it was because of the American debacle that Great Britain decided to forge a middle ground.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2015, 11:47 AM
 
Location: New York Area
35,062 posts, read 17,006,525 times
Reputation: 30211
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwruckman View Post
The Glorious Revolution hardly stabilized the British monarchy it beheaded it though!
The Glorious Revolution post-ceded the beheadings. You may want to look it up; you have your dates backwards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2015, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,119,848 times
Reputation: 21239
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
I think you mean "Dominion" status. That started as a result of the American Revolution and worked well with Canada. Preceding Dominion Status for most of the provinces was "responsible government" which started around 1839-41 and continued until 1867 when Dominion status was granted.
Aren't the dominion nations members of a singular commonwealth? I meant granting the colonies the same status which was ultimately granted to Canada. Either word seems to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2015, 03:15 PM
 
4,278 posts, read 5,177,391 times
Reputation: 2375
I recently read it had a lot to do with smuggling. J. Hancock was a smuggler. A rather good one too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2015, 07:00 PM
 
Location: New York Area
35,062 posts, read 17,006,525 times
Reputation: 30211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Aren't the dominion nations members of a singular commonwealth? I meant granting the colonies the same status which was ultimately granted to Canada. Either word seems to work.
Canada was never a Commonwealth. I believe that Virginia, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania were the only commonwealths.

From the looks of this definition Australia was organized as a Commonwealth, which looks similar to a dominion. The point stands though; Britain learned its lesson at Saratoga, Boston, Trenton and Yorktown.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2015, 07:23 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,119,848 times
Reputation: 21239
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
Canada was never a Commonwealth. I.
It is according to the official website of the British monarchy.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchandco...monwealth.aspx

Quote:
There are 53 member countries of the Commonwealth. These are listed below, with the years in which they joined the Commonwealth.



The Republic of Ireland did so in 1949, as did Zimbabwe in 2003.
Country Date Status
Antigua and Barbuda 1981 Realm
Australia 1931 Realm
The Bahamas 1973 Realm
Bangladesh 1972 Republic
Barbados 1966 Realm
Belize 1981 Realm
Botswana 1966 Republic
Brunei 1984 Monarchy
Cameroon 1995 Republic
Canada 1931 Realm
-----------------------------
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2015, 08:01 PM
 
Location: New York Area
35,062 posts, read 17,006,525 times
Reputation: 30211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
It is according to the official website of the British monarchy.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchandco...monwealth.aspx
Canada was absolutely a member of the British Commonwealth, which I believe was a post WW II (or WW I?) creation. Canada was created as the Dominion of Canada in 1867, comprising Ontario (previously known as Upper Canada), Quebec (previously known as Lower Canada), New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Ironically Prince Edward Island didn't join right away even though Charlottetown was where the organizing meetings were held.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2015, 09:17 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
9,169 posts, read 13,247,950 times
Reputation: 10141
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
Rapatious upper class as well as numerous people of lesser means had a pristine continent in front of them to explore and to exploit for their benefit. They simply had no use for the British middleman telling them what and how they can use, including the issue of slavery and expansion into Indian held territories.
Yeah! I am sure that is why the Revolution started in Boston and nearby areas of New England, the hot bed of slavery and expansion into Indian held territories.

But wait a minute, Boston was NOT the hot bed of slavery and expansion into Indian held territories. So your theory is does not really hold up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2015, 09:34 PM
 
Location: Tucson/Nogales
23,219 posts, read 29,040,205 times
Reputation: 32626
Undeniably, tobacco played a big role in the American Revolution, as tobacco was considered gold! They wanted our "gold", and wanted to turn the country into one big "gold" plantation, to supply the growing number of nicotine addicts. And England had the highest number of tobacco users in the world.

It all started with Columbus bringing a boat load of tobacco back to Spain. Before long, Spain, France and England were hooked on it, and the tobacco they grew in England didn't compare to the tobacco grown in Virginia.

Wasn't it Benjamin Franklin, who went to Paris, to negotiate a loan, to help repel the British, and the Parisian bankers wanted 5 million pounds of tobacco as collateral for the loan?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:16 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top