What policy would you recommend to avoid British isolation after the 7 Years War?

[raharris1973]

Brendan Simms' book "Three Victories and a Defeat" propounds a thesis about the importance of continental alliances and balances of power to Britain's overall security.

It argues Britain's security situation declined with its neglect of alliances after the 7 Years Wars and its eventual fight against the Americans, Bourbon Powers and Dutch while having no great power allies, resulting in loss of America and other territories.

This leads to the question, after signing the end of the 7 Years War with the Peace of Paris and Peace of Hubertusburg, what could and should Britain have done in the realm of great power politics, in terms of alliance diplomacy, appeasement, preemptive actions, subsidies, overseas commitments, or any other foreign policy, military or naval tools to prevent its isolation against the American-Bourbon coalition? What could Britain have done to keep those powers apart, or attract other balancing powers towards itself, to prevent them from being effective at dictating "the partition of the British Empire"?
Click to expand...

Based on the overall "Whig" theory of continental alliances being valuable propounded in the Simms' book, it seems to imply that perhaps Britain could have staved off defeat at the hands of the combination of the American-Bourbon-Dutch coalition by


1. Being more willing to give to Russia or Prussia something in return for an alliance.

2. Using Hanover more as an operating base rather than trying to just neutralize it.

3.Focusing more on creating continental alliances and less on countering France and Spain exclusively overseas.

What are your thoughts on this question?

 

[PsihoKekec]

It was in British nature to do so. They formed alliances when they needed them and neglected them when not needing them. Maintaining alliances in peacetime costs money and parliament was not particularly generous.

 

[stevep]

Based on the overall "Whig" theory of continental alliances being valuable propounded in the Simms' book, it seems to imply that perhaps Britain could have staved off defeat at the hands of the combination of the American-Bourbon-Dutch coalition by


1. Being more willing to give to Russia or Prussia something in return for an alliance.

2. Using Hanover more as an operating base rather than trying to just neutralize it.

3.Focusing more on creating continental alliances and less on countering France and Spain exclusively overseas.

What are your thoughts on this question?

A good analysis of the situation.

I think part of the problem was the idea that Britain only needed to concentrate on colonial and naval warfare, rather than having expensive continental commitments had gained traction, possibly the big flaw in Pitt the Older's mindset although he seemed to have overcome this somewhat during the war.

Also the neutralization of Hanover made sense as defending it was expensive and the kings, although George III was something of an exception, felt very possessive of their other kingdom, especially since they had more power there than in Britain where parliament was significantly more powerful.

However basically this, as the 1770's showed was a definite error. Britain over-judged its actual power without continental allies. Plus also its clear success, despite the fact it had given back massive territorial gains in 1783 seems to have both concerned a lot of powers, including the Netherlands, who had in recent years been fairly friendly as well as making a significant number of Britain's leadership over-confident.

Coupled with the desire to have some fiscal contribution from the American colonies towards the ongoing costs of their continued defence this presented a serious problem when the ardent refusal of a significant proportion of the colonies to make such a commitment and their skilled propaganda this lead to the storm when after some successes by the rebels assorted great powers joined in against Britain. This was not just the formal hostilities by France, Spain and the Netherlands but you got the League of Armed Neutrality between Russia, Sweden and Denmark to oppose the RN in the Baltic.

Even the lack of a war on the continent, while it protected Hanover from attack had the negative side that France was able to concentrate solely on the naval and colonial war rather than having to maintain large and expensive forces for attacks into Germany.

Britain should have maintained defensive alliances with at least Prussia and some of the traditional German allies, preferably also Russia and at least one of the other Baltic powers if possible. I doubt that anything could have been done with Austria while Prussia was an ally given the hostility between the two and also the royal marriage that linked Austria and France. Even the threat of a war on the continent might have tied up the French especially a bit.

Coupled with this possibly the other bit would have been to maintain good relations with the Netherlands. Their significantly smaller as a power than they had been previously but still a 2nd rank power that had useful power and influence.

I doubt it would be pratical to have good relations with the Bourbon powers, i.e. France and Spain so war would have probably come at some stage or another. There had already been some tensions over issues in the Falkland Is and also NW America IIRC. Possibly if a clear war had started with them before fighting had started in the colonies then potential for expansion for the latter, especially against Spanish Louisiana might have at least delayed the issue.

Otherwise it also needs a clearer management of the American colonies. Realising that a core of the rebels won't accept any agreement other than either the previous free ride or independence. Then either accepting the former or a clear policy to isolate and defeat them, especially politically. Countering a lot of the stories they put about and providing protection for those who opposed rebellion against mob attacks. However difficult to see a lasting solution. I just noticed checking on some details there was an early attempt at a form of what later became the dominion system, see Carlisle Peace Commission - Wikipedia for details. However since this was offering parliamentary representation within the empire its likely to compound the problem as I would assume they paid taxes at British levels which is unlikely to be acceptable to any colonists.

Steve

 

[S'task]

Coupled with the desire to have some fiscal contribution from the American colonies towards the ongoing costs of their continued defence this presented a serious problem when the ardent refusal of a significant proportion of the colonies to make such a commitment and their skilled propaganda this lead to the storm when after some successes by the rebels assorted great powers joined in against Britain.

There was no ongoing defense costs once the Seven Years War was complete, and your entire claim that the colony's issues were propaganda are revisionism. The idea of Independence in the colonies did not take hold until well into the 1770s, long after the American colonies had made multiple overtures of peace and sought multiple ways to NOT have to break away.

Firstly, bear in mind that the reason that much of the taxation on the American colonies failed was not because colonial authorities refused to collect or pay the taxes, it's that most of the taxes put on the colonies were in the form of tariffs and duties, which meant that all the colonists had to do to avoid paying the taxes was simply not purchase goods that had said duties laid upon them, in other words, many of those taxes failed because the colonists simply refused to purchase the taxed goods.

The entire premise of needing continental allies to have kept the American colonies is a farce on it's face, and an attempt to shift the blame of the lose of the colonies from Parliment's complete inability to properly handle the political pushback from the colonies by what amounted to tyrannical tactics, to a more esoteric area.

You want the British to maintain control of the American colonies, all you need to do is two things? 1. Recognize the legal rights of the American colonists as Englishmen (see this post for the details), which Parliament via it's laws had violated multiple times in the lead up to 1776, and give each colony Parliamentary representation in accordance to their population. Boom, done, the American colonies remain, lose almost all the grounds they have to complain about taxes and Parliament, and the independence faction completely loses steam.

At that point, with reconciliation between the American colonies, England really doesn't need Continental alliances as much. Expansion in N. America and all the natural resources and manpower loyal colonies bring to the table means that the main interest England would have in the continent is making sure it doesn't unify against Britain.

 

[stevep]

There was no ongoing defense costs once the Seven Years War was complete, and your entire claim that the colony's issues were propaganda are revisionism. The idea of Independence in the colonies did not take hold until well into the 1770s, long after the American colonies had made multiple overtures of peace and sought multiple ways to NOT have to break away.

Firstly, bear in mind that the reason that much of the taxation on the American colonies failed was not because colonial authorities refused to collect or pay the taxes, it's that most of the taxes put on the colonies were in the form of tariffs and duties, which meant that all the colonists had to do to avoid paying the taxes was simply not purchase goods that had said duties laid upon them, in other words, many of those taxes failed because the colonists simply refused to purchase the taxed goods.

The entire premise of needing continental allies to have kept the American colonies is a farce on it's face, and an attempt to shift the blame of the lose of the colonies from Parliment's complete inability to properly handle the political pushback from the colonies by what amounted to tyrannical tactics, to a more esoteric area.

You want the British to maintain control of the American colonies, all you need to do is two things? 1. Recognize the legal rights of the American colonists as Englishmen (see this post for the details), which Parliament via it's laws had violated multiple times in the lead up to 1776, and give each colony Parliamentary representation in accordance to their population. Boom, done, the American colonies remain, lose almost all the grounds they have to complain about taxes and Parliament, and the independence faction completely loses steam.

At that point, with reconciliation between the American colonies, England really doesn't need Continental alliances as much. Expansion in N. America and all the natural resources and manpower loyal colonies bring to the table means that the main interest England would have in the continent is making sure it doesn't unify against Britain.

You seem to have fallen for the myth put out by some of the rebels that it was a case of taxation without representation. That's not the case because that would have implied the colonists being willing to pay far, far more taxes than ever suggested by parliament. Which would have been the case if they had been treated like people in the British Isles were. As I've said in the past I wonder if Parliament should have called their bluff by offering such a solution as you would probably have seen the people claiming they wanted such being lynched by the same mobs - plus many others - that they had set on people who disagreed with them.

There was a need for colonial defence after the SYW ended, unless your saying that the colonists are willing to be totally defenseless for several months, from say Indian attack, French revolution in Quebec or a new war for several months until news of any such actions reach Britain and its able to assemble forces and transport them across the Atlantic to the point of combat.

The other option of course, which I have read was offered to the colonies, was for the colonies to maintain local forces for their own defence - leaving aside things like protection of their coastlines and overseas trade which would still have come free for them curtsy of the RN. However again the colonists rejected that because they would have to not only supply the manpower but the money to maintain such forces.

If the attempts to find a acceptable solution to partly fund the defence of the colonies was negated by the fact that the colonists refused to pay taxes on such items then why did they so often resort to violence? Plus virtually all taxation was based on such methods at the time. Income tax was still about 40 years ahead and Britain didn't tend to go in for direct taxation on land - possibly because as with the colonies they were largely dominated by large landowners.

I never said that Britain needed allies in Europe to keep control of the colonies so not sure where you got that from?? They needed continental allies to fight their continental opponents. The colonists in N America, even if many had been willing to cross an ocean to fight to defend Britain, which seems unlikely given the attitude of many, would simply have been too few to do so until probably the late 19thC.

Overall while the British government did make mistakes and by the modern standards the colonists, like the vast majority of people in Britain itself lack what we would considered rights but by the standards of the time they were very well treated. The closest comparison that comes to mind is possibly with the French aristocracy and clergy who also insisted on being exempt from paying tax despite seeking benefits from the state they were a part of.

 

[raharris1973]

Britain should have maintained defensive alliances with at least Prussia and some of the traditional German allies, preferably also Russia and at least one of the other Baltic powers if possible. I doubt that anything could have been done with Austria while Prussia was an ally given the hostility between the two and also the royal marriage that linked Austria and France. Even the threat of a war on the continent might have tied up the French especially a bit.

What would the British have needed to do keep Prussia sweet after 1763?

I believe the Prussians were already pretty miffed at the British by 1763 for signing peace separately (Treaty of Paris vs. Treaty of Hubertusberg) and making big gains for itself and cutting off subsidies while Prussia barely survived with all its pre-war territory.

To get and keep Prussian support would Britain needed to have pledged and maintained a continuous peacetime subsidy, and unconditionally supported (via Hanover's vote) Prussia's position on all HRE constitutional questions?

Whatever it took to do it. If Britain had succeeded in keeping the Prussian alliance going, would France have hesitated to go to actually declare war on Britain in 1778? Or to send the amount of force it did overseas? If France did declare war on Britain, would there have been an active Franco-Prussian front in Europe?

 

[Airedale260]

Snip

It wasn’t just “hey we need the colonists to pay for this” but also a case of the British actively getting involved in governance after largely leaving the colonies to their own devices for something like 120 years or more. While they had the legal authority to do that, they didn’t take into account the political situation on the ground at all (since the colonial legislatures were technically informal bodies but in practical terms were the main governing bodies of each colony), and when the colonists objected, were basically told “LOL Fuck You”. Which isn’t necessarily the best way to handle a series of colonies made up of, among other things, pretty much every political dissident you’ve kicked out of Britain.

So there was quite a bit of anger, but even then it hadn’t hit the point of no return. When Massachusetts had the Boston Tea Party, the other colonies were like “okay what the fuck you jackasses, that was uncalled for” But (in typically British fashion), the British response was even harsher and also ignored the situation on the ground, so they pushed the rest of the colonies who would have otherwise sided with them into opposition. Then they found out that it’s actually pretty hard to fight an insurgency on its home turf with 18th century levels of communication and technology. And their history of largely sticking to their own affairs (with favoring Hannover in recent decades due to the kings) meant the reactions they got from the rest of Europe ranged from “Sorry, but I need to go iron my dog” to “Hey, rosbif, fuck you and watch zis!”

Side note the first country to actually recognize the U.S. was Morocco, rather than any of the European powers.

 

[gral]

Side note the first country to actually recognize the U.S. was Morocco, rather than any of the European powers.

That fits with what happened to Brazil - first country to recognize Brazilian independence was an African kingdom, which had commercial ties to Brazilian merchants(by commercial ties, I mean they were one of the kingdoms which were selling slaves to Brazil). Second country was the USA.

 

[Airedale260]

That fits with what happened to Brazil - first country to recognize Brazilian independence was an African kingdom, which had commercial ties to Brazilian merchants(by commercial ties, I mean they were one of the kingdoms which were selling slaves to Brazil). Second country was the USA.

Well, Morocco wasn’t selling slaves to the U.S.; though there were some problems the U.S. had with Maghrebi pirates, the Moroccans acted as a protecting power to the U.S.

 

[S'task]

technically informal bodies

Err, no they weren't? The colonial legislatures were quite formalized, being created by the various charters that created said colonies. Typically the set up was that a colony had a governor appointed by the Crown, who acted as the Executive of the colony and represented the King's interest. Then you typically had a lower and upper house, similar to how Parliament was structured, with the lower house typically representing "the people" (meaning voting males) and the upper house being tied to land representation or First Families, or the like.

That is one of the reasons the colonies were so frustrated with Parliament for seeking to alter the status quo, they had long established governments (Virginia's for instance, dating back to 1619, which made it older and more stable than the Parliament that was ordering it around) and felt they had been perfectly fine without Parliament's direct interventions.

You seem to have fallen for the myth put out by some of the rebels that it was a case of taxation without representation. That's not the case because that would have implied the colonists being willing to pay far, far more taxes than ever suggested by parliament. Which would have been the case if they had been treated like people in the British Isles were.

You clearly didn't read my linked post going over what led up to the formal rebellion by the colonies. Suffice to say, given how true the American Founders tended to be when it came to their word and political opinions, yes, I do believe they would have been fine with English level taxation assuming they had representation in Parliament consumate to their population in the Empire.

A solution that was entirely untenable for the Parliament at the time, as even in the 1760s that would have meant creating a massive voting bloc that while it wouldn't have dominated the body, it would have added enough seats that likely would have conferenced with the Whigs that the Parliament would end up changing hands (as the Whigs were in minority at the time), since the Colonies and the Whigs generally were more similar politically. As it was, the Whigs consistently criticized and condemned the majority's handling of the American Colonies, which was utterly incompetent and quite literally drove the colonies away from England (again, READ MY LINKED POST, it goes into considerable detail about just how badly Parliament fucked up in handling the Colonial Question, any number of points where they could have prevented the rebellion were fundamentally ignored in favor of ham-fisted arrogance).

 

[gral]

Well, Morocco wasn’t selling slaves to the U.S.; though there were some problems the U.S. had with Maghrebi pirates, the Moroccans acted as a protecting power to the U.S.

What I meant is that Afircan kingdoms who had ties with colonies(whether commercial or political) did take an interest in the those colonies' affairs, and the geographical area they paid attention to was much bigger than most people think.

 

[Airedale260]

Snip

First thing, I generally agree with your point about how badly the British screwed the pooch on this but a couple clarifications:

When I said “informal” colonial legislatures, what I meant was that they had no real legal standing in terms of what they could force the British government to do, which is part of the reason the British were so high-handed in their behavior. The colonies were in a weird position legally -yes, they were given royal charters thand assigned royal governors, but they were basically private entities (see how William Penn, for example, was proprietor of Pennsylvania and Delaware; Virginia was set up through the Virginia Company, etc).

Now, up until 1763 none of this really mattered, since the general philosophy had been one of salutary neglect -i.e., England/Britain let the colonies run themselves, and things worked fairly well. The colonists had local systems in place to ensure their rights were looked after and expanded their frontiers with no real problems from London.

When London actively started getting involved without regard for the situation on the ground, including standing arrangements going back for a long time, it obviously bit them in the ass and for good reason. While they technically had the power to do so, whether they should have done so is something they never stopped to consider.

Given how they handled Ireland (narrator’s voice: They didn’t) much the same way, one would think they’d know better. But they didn’t, because as you said, the ones in power were too arrogant to realize they didn’t have anywhere near the power they thought they did.

Side note: The House of Burgesses was nowhere near older than Parliament, by the way. Parliament dates back to 1265. Now, their sovereignty over the monarchs is another issue that wasn’t resolved until after the Civil War, but even then, Parliament did have some authority.

 

[S'task]

Side note: The House of Burgesses was nowhere near older than Parliament, by the way. Parliament dates back to 1265. Now, their sovereignty over the monarchs is another issue that wasn’t resolved until after the Civil War, but even then, Parliament did have some authority.

Except that Parliament had been functionally dissolved during the English Civil War and the Lord Protector's Reign and the then present Parliament was effectively called in 1660. I know England likes to claim it's all the same Parliament, but there's a serious lack of continuity in government between the Parliaments ruling under the Lord Protectors in the English Civil War and the Restoration Parliament and what came after. Further, my point was that that Virginia's legislature (both the House of Commons and Burgesses) DID have continuity of stable government all through that period, managing things in the Virginia colony just fine while England decided to tear itself apart in a fit of idiocy. Also, as I outlined in my linked post, the Parliament of the time wasn't just trying to move from statutory neglect, they were violating the Right of Englishmen as established in England in many of their acts, of which many of the American colonists were guaranteed those rights by their charters.

That's something else to realize, most of the American colonists did not see themselves as subserviently colonies to England, rather they thought they were supposed to be equal citizens to England (and this had some good founding in the various charters, which often had language indicating the colonists were supposed to be still considered fully "Englishmen" with all the rights and privileges thereof).

 

[stevep]

Except that Parliament had been functionally dissolved during the English Civil War and the Lord Protector's Reign and the then present Parliament was effectively called in 1660. I know England likes to claim it's all the same Parliament, but there's a serious lack of continuity in government between the Parliaments ruling under the Lord Protectors in the English Civil War and the Restoration Parliament and what came after. Further, my point was that that Virginia's legislature (both the House of Commons and Burgesses) DID have continuity of stable government all through that period, managing things in the Virginia colony just fine while England decided to tear itself apart in a fit of idiocy. Also, as I outlined in my linked post, the Parliament of the time wasn't just trying to move from statutory neglect, they were violating the Right of Englishmen as established in England in many of their acts, of which many of the American colonists were guaranteed those rights by their charters.

That's something else to realize, most of the American colonists did not see themselves as subserviently colonies to England, rather they thought they were supposed to be equal citizens to England (and this had some good founding in the various charters, which often had language indicating the colonists were supposed to be still considered fully "Englishmen" with all the rights and privileges thereof).

Except that they wanted the rights without the responsibilities.

 

[Airedale260]

Except that they wanted the rights without the responsibilities.

Not exactly. Remember, they were doing a lot of the lifting in terms of frontier security and the like on their own. And when you had officers come over from Britain, they were often completely clueless about life on this side of the Atlantic, which made attempts at defense go very poorly indeed.

While you might argue that the colonists were simply being unreasonable at first (and that's debatable but a defensible point), what ultimately happened is that, instead of taking the time to actually work through the differences and respecting the rights the colonists had both in law and practice, Parliament just kept brushing them off as unimportant, even ignoring the input of those who were actually trying to help resolve the matter. Or, put bluntly, the colonists may have been unreasonable at first, but Parliament's actions in response were BATSHIT INSANE. As they say in the military "Fuck Around and Find Out," and that is EXACTLY what the British did.

And what's more? Most countries would take prior experiences and go "Hey, this was in hindsight really fucking dumb of us. We really shouldn't do this again." Instead, Britain completely ignored that...and about 150 years later it bit them in the ass in a place called Ireland.

Oops.

 

[S'task]

Except that they wanted the rights without the responsibilities.

What responsibilities did they shirk? They paid the taxes that were placed on them, it's not like the Colonies had some special carve out from taxation, Parliament set the taxes on goods and the Colonies paid for them when they bought those goods. They may not have liked those taxes, and petitioned for them to be removed, but last I checked petitioning for something to be changed is perfectly legitimate. Unless you're claiming they had a responsibility to buy the taxed products and that by failing to purchase the taxed goods they were somehow shirking their responsibilities, but last I checked there was no English tradition of compelled commerce...

Or are you talking about the specific failure of the Colony of New York to pay for the upkeep of the English troops quartered in the colony against their wishes and request in explicit contradiction of the Quartering Act? OK, that's a fair enough criticism then of the New York Colony and it's local government, but then, how does that apply to the Virginia colony or the Massachusetts Bay colony, who had not taken any such actions, and how does that action justify the broad targeting of the colonies that did not take such actions?

 

[stevep]

Not exactly. Remember, they were doing a lot of the lifting in terms of frontier security and the like on their own. And when you had officers come over from Britain, they were often completely clueless about life on this side of the Atlantic, which made attempts at defense go very poorly indeed.

While you might argue that the colonists were simply being unreasonable at first (and that's debatable but a defensible point), what ultimately happened is that, instead of taking the time to actually work through the differences and respecting the rights the colonists had both in law and practice, Parliament just kept brushing them off as unimportant, even ignoring the input of those who were actually trying to help resolve the matter. Or, put bluntly, the colonists may have been unreasonable at first, but Parliament's actions in response were BATSHIT INSANE. As they say in the military "Fuck Around and Find Out," and that is EXACTLY what the British did.

And what's more? Most countries would take prior experiences and go "Hey, this was in hindsight really fucking dumb of us. We really shouldn't do this again." Instead, Britain completely ignored that...and about 150 years later it bit them in the ass in a place called Ireland.

Oops.

You may have a point with indirect taxes if they were also charged on goods in the colonies. I'll admit to that.

Not sure that the behaviour of Parliament was "batshit insane" as they repeatedly withdrew taxes due to colonial complaints. Where they seem to have failed was in realising that the colonies were objecting to any tax to meet a defence contribution rather than those particular taxes.

Inaccurate over Ireland as it was a fully incorporated into the UK - hence its title at the time - with a generous share of the central Parliament. Furthermore there was an agreement to give it an unparalleled level of self-government at the same time. [Contary to popular myth in some areas the Dublin Parliament was closed when Ireland was brought fully into the UK not as some persecution of the Catholic Irish but to prevent the Protestant minority, which held power at that time from abusing that power].

It was probably that home rule was on the way that made the extremists so desperate as to make their coup attempt in 1916, which even they expected to fail as it did. The failure of the British government, such as it was, was to allow an armed uprising in the middle of a war where the group involved paraded their connections with Germany to be tried by the military rather than a civilian court. Which unfortunately turned some opinion against the government while local public opinion had been bitterly hostile towards the rebels who had brought bloodshed and devastation to the Irish capital. - Also a 2nd suggestion I've seen was that the famous karki election in 1918 undermined the situation in Ireland as many of the loyalists - both Catholic and Protestant were still in arms on the continent and hence unable to vote. A failure that Britain fortunately rectified in 1945.

 

[S'task]

Not sure that the behaviour of Parliament was "batshit insane" as they repeatedly withdrew taxes due to colonial complaints.

This is at best questionable. Colonial complaints made little difference, it was the English merchant complaints that appeared to have actually caused Parliament to make changes to the tax laws, because the way the Colonies showed their displeasure with the taxes was simply to boycott the taxed goods and either do without, find local alternatives, or... well some did indulge in the purchase of tax free smuggled goods. However, the boycotts were so effective that not only did expected money from the taxes effectively not show up, they also threatened the very companies that specialized in shipping English goods to the colonies, hence why Parliament eventually repealed most of them.

But bear in mind, it wasn't just the taxes the colonies objected to. For instance, part of the the Revenue Act of 1767 involved the use of Writs of Assistance in enforcing these acts, as these writs allowed the personal property of the colonists to be searched without reason or warrant, which was long considered a violation of rights of Englishmen, as laid out in Semayne's Case (1604) and Entick v. Carrington (1765).

Another serious issue was in the Vice Admiralty Court Act. This act altered the jurisdiction of smuggling cases from colonial courts to Royal Naval Courts. This might seem reasonable on its surface, after all, smuggling in the colonies was predominately a naval affair; however, the act did not stop there. Firstly, these Courts were judged not by juries, but by judges appointed by the crown. This alone would be considered a violation of the right to jury that was afforded to all freemen in England since at least 1641, but it gets worse, not only were these judges empowered to hear and judge cases without trial by jury, they were also awarded 5% of any fine the judge levied when they found someone guilty. In other words, the judges were financially incentivized to issue guilty verdicts regardless of the facts of the case.

Stripping the colonists of their right to trial by jury (in some circumstances) while structuring an inherently biased court (can you seriously tell me that a court where the judge is financially incentivized to issue guilty verdicts is in any way impartial?) and the requirement for warrants for search and seizure, long standing rights of Englishmen that had previously been recognized in the colonies and even ensured by their colonial charters goes well beyond the pithy "taxation without representation" that most remember.

And all these are in place, along with those taxes and mercantilist policies, long before a small group of colonial radicals dressed up as Natives and performed one of the largest acts of vandalism in history. But once that Tea Party happened, Parliament went even stupider and began issuing collective punishments against the ENTIRE Massachusetts Bay colony over the actions of a minority, the injustice of which seriously incensed the other colonies. For example, the Massachusetts Government Act functionally abolished local self-rule of the colony and prohibited Town Hall meetings without the royally appointed governor's assent. This act literally prohibited a local community from meeting in a common area just to DISCUSS ongoing events without permission from the Royal governor, a pretty serious violation of the rights to assembly and speech that applied to everyone in Massachusetts, even people tens of miles away from Boston and completely uninvolved with the unrest in that city (remember, this was the 1770s in an underdeveloped colony, tens of miles could be multiple DAYS of travel at the time, depending on the weather).

This is what folks mean when they say Parliament acted batshit insane. The collective punishments issued against Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party seem almost tailor made to INCREASE civil unrest in the colonies and escalate the situation rather than deescalate. There's a reason the Whigs in Parliament (who were in the Opposition) kept calling the Majority out for their handling of the American Colonies, it was clear to them that not only did the American colonies have good points calling out the acts of Parliament, Parliament itself was being utterly incompetent in their handling of the leadup to 1776...

 

[raharris1973]

Sounds like the Tory parliamentary majority was making the rules and pissing off the colonies and, even when making occasional concessions, still not 'getting the point'. The Whig minority opposition was complaining about what they saw as the follow of the Ministry the whole time.

I know this was post Glorious Revolution and the King under that settlement was supposed to be politically circumspect, but what powers did he still have under the unwritten constitution to affect the Ministries policies and tenor of the discussion in Parliament?

It was the momentary Parliamentary majority that was escalating tensions with the Americans, and whom the Americans were defying, not the King. Ironically, the Whigs, the ones the biggest on Parliamentary supremacy, were against the policies towards the colonies. If the the King's displeasure with the ruling factions policies were known, wouldn't it have been bad for Tory morale and resulted in a quicker change of policy toward the colonies?

Or, would the topic of political conversation in Britain have changed from, "what's up with the colonies?" to "how appropriate is it for the King's pleasure and displeasure to be known?" with the end result of the pro-American Whigs, while agreeing with the King on a colonial matter, would pivot to their parliamentary supremacy hat, and unite with the jilted Tories to push the King aside.

"Georgie, we didn't ask you to weigh in on our debates, we're going to have ask you to retire to Hanover."

 

[stevep]

Sounds like the Tory parliamentary majority was making the rules and pissing off the colonies and, even when making occasional concessions, still not 'getting the point'. The Whig minority opposition was complaining about what they saw as the follow of the Ministry the whole time.

I know this was post Glorious Revolution and the King under that settlement was supposed to be politically circumspect, but what powers did he still have under the unwritten constitution to affect the Ministries policies and tenor of the discussion in Parliament?

It was the momentary Parliamentary majority that was escalating tensions with the Americans, and whom the Americans were defying, not the King. Ironically, the Whigs, the ones the biggest on Parliamentary supremacy, were against the policies towards the colonies. If the the King's displeasure with the ruling factions policies were known, wouldn't it have been bad for Tory morale and resulted in a quicker change of policy toward the colonies?

Or, would the topic of political conversation in Britain have changed from, "what's up with the colonies" to "how appropriate is it for the King's pleasure and displeasure to be known" with the end result of the pro-American Whigs, while agreeing with the King on a colonial matter, would pivot to their parliamentary supremacy hat, and unite with the jilted Tories to push the King aside.

"Georgie, we didn't ask you to weigh in on our debates, we're going to have ask you to retire to Hanover."

The monarchy was still very influential in Parliament, both directly, as the king was the one who asked a politician to form a new government and could ignore leaders he didn't like largely regardless of their support. Also Parliament was still unreformed so there was a lot of pressure that could be apply on the voters, who were few in number in many cases or under the influence of local landlords.

In the period after 1763 the young George III, probably influenced by the success of Britain in that conflict, the ideals of enlightened despotism becoming popular on the continent, and the fact he identified as British rather than Hanoverian sought to increase his political power and become markedly more influential than his grandfather and great grandfather. He and his supporters built up the Tory party that ended the so called Whig Supremacy which dominated British politics from ~1715. It wasn't realised initially in the colonies that much of what Parliament was doing was being fully supported by the king. There was quite a power struggle but after defeat in the war against the Bourbon powers, American rebels and Dutch while the Tory party remained in power Parliamentary interests regained much ground lost to the monarchy since 1763.