Random Thoughts Thread

[Montmorency]

Just realized that "taxation with representation" in Parliament for American colonists would not have been physically possible in that era - meaning that GB could have had no authority to tax (American) colonists, meaning that GB could have had no authority to rule over the American colonists: leaving GB the options of departure or war.

If it happens that early and leading "patriots" did not follow through to this logic, and they tended not to consider separation from the mother country until well into 1776, then we should put even more stock in the notion that high-minded debate of philosophical ideals was largely the fig leaf for the proximate commercial interests of an up-and-coming colonial bourgeoisie.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Just realized that "taxation with representation" in Parliament for American colonists would not have been physically possible in that era - meaning that GB could have had no authority to tax (American) colonists, meaning that GB could have had no authority to rule over the American colonists: leaving GB the options of departure or war.

If it happens that early and leading "patriots" did not follow through to this logic, and they tended not to consider separation from the mother country until well into 1776, then we should put even more stock in the notion that high-minded debate of philosophical ideals was largely the fig leaf for the proximate commercial interests of an up-and-coming colonial bourgeoisie.

Both issues were at play. The commercial angle wasn't even 'hidden' at the time. The biggest name on the DoI was not that of a political theorist...

[Montmorency]

Yeah, but I'm struck by the implied inevitability. Even if everyone on both sides of the Atlantic had agreed in principle that Parliamentary representation was the correct compromise, it would never have been practicable in the 18th century.

This means that those fomenters either did not really think through their proposed dream solution, or being intelligent men they did understand the point, but it never bothered them because they weren't looking for an amicable way out in the first place.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yeah, but I'm struck by the implied inevitability. Even if everyone on both sides of the Atlantic had agreed in principle that Parliamentary representation was the correct compromise, it would never have been practicable in the 18th century.

This means that those fomenters either did not really think through their proposed dream solution, or being intelligent men they did understand the point, but it never bothered them because they weren't looking for an amicable way out in the first place.

Probably some of both would be my guess. You are correct as to the practicability of New World MPs with a month-long trip one way for messages and to attend sessions. But I would bet more than a few didn't think that part through.

Among the independency crowd, the only amicable resolution would have had to have followed the approach later taken in Canada. Anything less than functional independence with local government would not have stood up to their goals. Otis, the Adames, and a few others didn't want anything less than we ultimately did achieve.