2 ms·

Any reconciliation would have shattered within decades due to inherent differences in their respective support for slavery, which I note you oddly did not menti

Any reconciliation would have shattered within decades due to inherent differences in their respective support for slavery, which I note you oddly did not mention. The slaughter of indigenous had occurred also under British colonial rule in the Americas. It isn't like taxes were the sole issue. British control of the Americas was too weak to enforce the Proclamation Line of 1763, which "marked the beginning of a clear ideological break with the mother country" quoting https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/proclamation-line-of-1763/ https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-e... . Also from that link, "the British government viewed westward expansion as a threat to their mercantile economic system, expressing concern that opening up the west to farming families would provide the colonies with opportunities to gain economic independence through commercial agriculture."

ggm 3y ago
Mercantile opposition seems to be transitional more than permanent. It was unable to entirely dominate "king cotton" during the later civil war despite huge losses to trade. So I don't see pre 76 opposition to westward development as particularly critical because influxes of money would have changed this. Had the British government offered land and titles to the right people, it would have vanished overnight. But you're probably right a breach was inevitable. Perhaps the rush of loyalists north to Canada entrenched it as a set of colonies more than a dominion for some time. Similarly if Darien hadn't failed, much would be different. I don't understand your comment about indigenous slaughter. Did I not make it plain I believe it would have happened irrespective? Maybe "continued" would be better, is that it?
- eesmith 3y ago
  My major issue was how you ignored mention of slavery at all in your counter-factual. Had the British government offered land and titles to the right people -- assuming such people existed, which seems unlikely -- how much longer would the British Empire have supported slavery as official policy? With titles would have come representation in Parliament, increasing the control of slaveholders on British rule. > I don't understand your comment about indigenous slaughter. You wrote "I hesitate to say the slaughter of indigenous would not have happened", implying you think it might not have happened.
whakim 3y ago
But British opposition to slavery did not pick up steam in earnest until the late 18th and early 19th century, and at first was mostly limited to opposition to slavery in the British home islands and the transatlantic slave trade. Neither of those practices were particularly lucrative. Only once sugar plantations in the Caribbean ceased to be lucrative was slavery abolished in the 1830s. While it's almost impossible to argue a "what if," the fact that British economic interests were so intertwined with British positions on slavery suggests that Britain would not have willingly freed slaves in the colonies.
- eesmith 3y ago
  In a comment proposing a counterfactual world where all of the North American colonies stayed with the US, surely it's important to consider how that would have affected British support for slavery, rather than skip the topic altogether and imply that the additional ... years? ... decades? of British slave trade and use of slave labor would be "Perhaps not such a bad outcome".
  - whakim 3y ago
    I'm pretty sure we agree; I misread your statement about "inherent differences in their respective support for slavery" as an implication that Britain would have been just as opposed to the slave trade (and later slavery) in this counterfactual scenario.

ggm 3y ago

Mercantile opposition seems to be transitional more than permanent. It was unable to entirely dominate "king cotton" during the later civil war despite huge losses to trade. So I don't see pre 76 opposition to westward development as particularly critical because influxes of money would have changed this. Had the British government offered land and titles to the right people, it would have vanished overnight. But you're probably right a breach was inevitable. Perhaps the rush of loyalists north to Canada entrenched it as a set of colonies more than a dominion for some time. Similarly if Darien hadn't failed, much would be different. I don't understand your comment about indigenous slaughter. Did I not make it plain I believe it would have happened irrespective? Maybe "continued" would be better, is that it?

eesmith 3y ago
My major issue was how you ignored mention of slavery at all in your counter-factual. Had the British government offered land and titles to the right people -- assuming such people existed, which seems unlikely -- how much longer would the British Empire have supported slavery as official policy? With titles would have come representation in Parliament, increasing the control of slaveholders on British rule. > I don't understand your comment about indigenous slaughter. You wrote "I hesitate to say the slaughter of indigenous would not have happened", implying you think it might not have happened.

whakim 3y ago

But British opposition to slavery did not pick up steam in earnest until the late 18th and early 19th century, and at first was mostly limited to opposition to slavery in the British home islands and the transatlantic slave trade. Neither of those practices were particularly lucrative. Only once sugar plantations in the Caribbean ceased to be lucrative was slavery abolished in the 1830s. While it's almost impossible to argue a "what if," the fact that British economic interests were so intertwined with British positions on slavery suggests that Britain would not have willingly freed slaves in the colonies.

eesmith 3y ago
In a comment proposing a counterfactual world where all of the North American colonies stayed with the US, surely it's important to consider how that would have affected British support for slavery, rather than skip the topic altogether and imply that the additional ... years? ... decades? of British slave trade and use of slave labor would be "Perhaps not such a bad outcome".
- whakim 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure we agree; I misread your statement about "inherent differences in their respective support for slavery" as an implication that Britain would have been just as opposed to the slave trade (and later slavery) in this counterfactual scenario.