British plans for post revolutionary America

[krieger11b]

I would imagine a strong arms control would be implemented. Especially given how many of the "noble" officers were killed in hit and run attacks by local hunter/trappers on the rebellions side.

The first battles of the revolutionary war happened when searching for Massachusetts Militia's illegal stores food and weapons at the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

The people on the frontier would suffer badly without guns to hunt with and wouldn't have time to learn using a bow before starving to death. However most of the money for the UK to make was not from the frontier but in timber, cotton, taxes etc. So long as they kept the native American tribes from being a threat, I think the arms control would work.

 

[Deaghaidh]

I doubt the British would have the manpower or will to disarm the Americans on the frontier. Aside from individual homesteads who had a legitimate claim to need them, the expensive task of defending and policing that much land would not be popular.

They would eventually have to reinstate some form of Colonial Militias, probably reorganized so that they are under the overall command of the regular army.

 

[Imgran]

Besides not having the manpower, it would be stupid to disarm the settlers. Disarming the settlers would make it necessary to have a permanent (and expensive) British garrison on the frontier to replace the defense provided by American militiamen. Better to let them keep their guns. Besides, it's absolutely impractical to completely disarm the American settlers without policing American colonies as if they were British counties, which goes beyond merely a garrison, requires far more manpower, and would be ruinously expensive to execute along the entire Eastern Board.

This even besides the fact again that even in heartland Britain, the right to keep and bear arms was respected and it would be yet another case of treating British colonial subjects like second class citizens.

 

[krieger11b]

Not disarming at least the militias seems like a recipe for letting another revolt happen. Maybe it wouldn't happen again, I don't know if there were major policy changes in the colonies after the revolutionary war. I am assuming so since the 13 colonies were the only European settled colony to revolt. Not counting Boers since they were already there when the UK decided to put them under their dominion.

 

[Deaghaidh]

Not disarming at least the militias seems like a recipe for letting another revolt happen. Maybe it wouldn't happen again, I don't know if there were major policy changes in the colonies after the revolutionary war. I am assuming so since the 13 colonies were the only European settled colony to revolt. Not counting Boers since they were already there when the UK decided to put them under their dominion.

The UK would be in a bind. On the one hand the Revolution would be a strong reason to disband the colonial governments and local militias. But on the other, administering and defending the colonies without those institutions would be expensive and difficult.

One solution might be to punish the colonists by giving them exactly what they wanted, representation. The 13 colonies wouldn't have enough votes in the Commons to matter much, and it would give the British the cover to impose the same level of taxation and control as in England.

Edit: IIRC, there were rebellions in Canada, and possibly Australia and New Zealand (I'm less familiar there). They didn't get far and I don't think they ever explicitly demanded Independence

 

[Yakman]

The UK would be in a bind. On the one hand the Revolution would be a strong reason to disband the colonial governments and local militias. But on the other, administering and defending the colonies without those institutions would be expensive and difficult.

One solution might be to punish the colonists by giving them exactly what they wanted, representation. The 13 colonies wouldn't have enough votes in the Commons to matter much, and it would give the British the cover to impose the same level of taxation and control as in England.

Edit: IIRC, there were rebellions in Canada, and possibly Australia and New Zealand (I'm less familiar there). They didn't get far and I don't think they ever explicitly demanded Independence

umm.... if the representation were proportional, the colonies would have what, 1/5th of the votes in parliament? more?

it would also encourage RADICALISM in England, which cannot be suffered.

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

umm.... if the representation were proportional, the colonies would have what, 1/5th of the votes in parliament? more?

it would also encourage RADICALISM in England, which cannot be suffered.

Easy solution to the first part, give the representation to the colonies and not the population.

 

[keynes2.0]

13 MPs for 13 colonies?

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

13 MPs for 13 colonies?

Why not? Or just give it a fixed number. I think the Irish got something like 15 MPs, so give the colonies the same.

 

[Attalus]

Even the Scots had the time had 35 MPs compared to the 500 English MPs so arbitrary numbers were not uncommon

 

[OnvreOrrivle]

Very probably kill Washington and folks, redistribute land to loyalists, destroy or redistribute some colonies.

 

[Gordy]

Unsuccessful rebellions throughout the British Empire (and within the UK) rarely led to improvements for those on the losing side. In fact I can't think of any examples right here and now where the losing side didn't just get smashed.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Unsuccessful rebellions throughout the British Empire (and within the UK) rarely led to improvements for those on the losing side. In fact I can't think of any examples right here and now where the losing side didn't just get smashed.

That's true, but there was often a tendency to reorganize the territory after the smashing in a way that acceded to some of the rebel demands: for example, Canada was given responsible government after the 1837-8 Rebellion and the situation in India slightly improved if you were a powerful collaborative Indian after the 1857 Rebellion (at least there was less British meddling in local customs and more of a willingness to prop up local power structures).

 

[BBBD316]

From my limited understanding the British didn't expect the Americans to really take up arms in a full rebellion did they? Like at the start there was only a small percentage of states/colonists that wanted to break from the motherland.

I did read a what if book on America where the British Government moved quickly to meet and bargin with the agitators and re-establish a Britishness to the colonies. It divided colonies be providing various benefits on some and not others so they fought amoungs themselves.

It was quite far fetched as it meant that America remained a British possession will into the 20th century and the Brits were basically masters of the earth.

 

[keynes2.0]

Like at the start there was only a small percentage of states/colonists that wanted to break from the motherland.

Pretty much nobody wanted to break away at first. The first continental congress was aimed at economic retaliation. When the British responded with an even harsher crackdown, all the colonies unanimously moved from not wanting independence to wanting it.

 

[LatinKaiser]

Pretty much nobody wanted to break away at first. The first continental congress was aimed at economic retaliation. When the British responded with an even harsher crackdown, all the colonies unanimously moved from not wanting independence to wanting it.

Unanimously, you say?

I know it's a gross fictionalization, but I love that musical.

 

[Arilou]

all the colonies unanimously moved from not wanting independence to wanting it.

I also seem to remember the original congress having representatives from eg. the Carribean as well, who obviously didn't agree.

 

[keynes2.0]

I do not see such delegates listed in either congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_delegates_to_the_Continental_Congress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Continental_Congress#List_of_delegates

I do vaguely recall reading something in some novel about Barbados being turned into a ghost town by the war and being quite unhappy.

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

While we're on the subject of planned British policy in the Americas, what was the policy for prominent captured Patriots? Were they treated like traitors, or mercifully?

 

[keynes2.0]

The POW ships were infamous. I have no clue if they were common or if it's just a case of sensationalizing something bad but rare.