Why didn't the United Kingdom give the New World the vote?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Starchild
With Canada and Australia however, they were not independent countries that required Acts of Union. They were countries created by Parliament itself and tied to the Parliament though the various constitutional arrangements. Their self-rule was effectively the same as the current "self-rule" Scotland has in the UK. Local parliaments to deal with local matters but ultimately, the buck stopped and started in London. Sending MP's to London wasn't necessary or even considered because that simply wasn't the arrangement relating colony to coloniser. Remember, until recently (ie, the early 20th century) dominions like Canada and Australia still had to go to war whenever the UK said so.

Then again, take what I say with a grain of salt as I am not a UK Constitutional expert.

Best so far on the topic, but not quite right.

I don't think adding seats for us in Parliament was ever considered. It's an interesting proposition, even though I doubt anyone ever proposed the idea. What happened was more like...

First, remember that we are not talking about Canada in 1860, we are talking about 6 (or 7 depending on how you count) different colonies and a massive area of unsettled territory. Many of the colonies had very little in common with each other, and in fact several of them stayed on as colonies after Confederation in 1867. Several joined soon after 1867, but the last did not join until 1949 after a failed attempt at independence on their own. Interestingly, one of the colonies, Nova Scotia, had very anti-Confederation feelings. The 'provincial' elections there in 1867 led to an 'anti' government who promptly set about seeking ways to repeal their predecesors' signatures on the documents. Their interest in the topic waned as they realised more and more that their only alternative was repugnant as it involved republicanism.

You have to go back a ways to find the origins for the albatross that eventually was hatched by the British North America Act of 1867 (Canada's 'Constitution' until 1982).

In 1837 there were rebellions in both Canadas (Ontario and Quebec). These rebellions were fueled by some of the same tinder that had sparked the American colonies to rebel 60 years previous. Both were put down, but the British government was interested in finding ways to avoid repetitions in British North America, and elsewhere. They sent one Lord Durham (aka Radical Jack) to serve as GG of all of the colonies in British North America. He was provided with able and experienced colonial staff and tasked with providing suggestions to London on a future course of action. He only stayed 5 months, but it appears he was quite astute (for his time). Upon returning to London he filed what became known as Durham's Report.

Durham suggested three things. First, he recommended colonial self-government. Local matters should be dealt with by the locals, with only big issues like foreign policy, inter-Empire trade, and Constitutional matters being decided in London. He also suggested that the advisors to the Governors General should be drawn from the local Assemblies and that they should abide by the wishes of those representatives. He further suggested the union of the 2 Canadas as a way for the older, more established Lower canada to aid the development of the newer 'frontier' of Upper Canada.

As I mentioned, his nick was Radical. What DanS proposes as a what-if today sounds common sensical. However, the granting of self government (essentially what Durham recommended) was unheard of in his day.

The only porposal of his to be adopted soon was that Upper and Lower Canada be joined into the United Province of Canada (1841). This union was reversed in 1867, but the idea of uniting to promote development would remain important.

Now, go back a bit farther. When the American colonies fought for and won their independence, there were a large number of colonists loyal to the Crown and who fought against or at least did not cooperate with the revolutionaries. Where did they all go after Yorktown? Many of them, the United Empire Loyalists as they are known here-abouts, went North. Some settled in the existing colonies that remained British and many went farther West to begin the foundations for the colony of Upper Canada.

Now, fast forward to 1864. The Civil War is coming to a close. The British are wary of the growing power of the Union. There are Americans in the administration making noises about the wrongs done by Britain in aiding the South. By 1865, the Yankees have a large, hardened Army in the field, and they are casting glances northward. Britain does not want to have to pay to defend BNA from the Union. They also do not want to lose the colonies to the Union Army.

Now add to the mix that the sons and daughters of those who had stayed loyal to Britain, or hostile to the Yankees (if you're French) are a bit concerned about 2 things. Better government is one, and not being dragooned into the Union is the other. About this time someone in London unearths Lord Durham's report, and those involved in BNA and London begin to wonder if the hair-brained scheme might not just work.

Responsible, non-British, government in BNA might keep the Yanks out, and it will certainly satisfy local wanna-bes with more power than they dreamt of having. If the Governor General of Nova Scotia is listening to the populace and resisting the idea, then sack him and send a new one with express instructions to encourage cooperation in the scheme.

Thus the confluence of events, desire for better government in the colonies, and fear of the growing power of the Union came together from 1864 to 1867 and Confederation was hammered out. It became fact when Westminster passed the British North America Act, which was proclaimed in the newly minted Dominion of Canada on July 1, sort of as a 'here's a stick in your eye' to the Yanks.

Beyond that, our independence grew with time and without ammendment to the BNA Act. Our entry into WW1 was pretty well automatic, but we insisted on signing the peace ourselves (as someone else mentioned) in the aftermath of the blood-letting. The last time the monarch or one of his or her representatives got seriously involved was in the 1920's and even though he had good cause, the battle was lost to bigger concepts. By 1939, our upstart PM was of the opinion that entry into a new war with Germany would have to be done by his government's choice and with the consent of Parliament. That delayed our entry for 9 days while far flung MPs caught trains back to Ottawa, debated and decided that it was our decision, and then promptly decided to declare war, as if there was ever any doubt.

What Britain did with Canada lent support for what then happened elsewhere. The devolution of the colonies into the Empire with Dominions was underway. In a way, I think it strengthened the Empire and made it last longer than it would have otherwise.

Even to this day, should Britain (or Australia) ever be in real peril there would be a considerable sentiment to lend direct aid, at least in Canada. There would certainly be interest in more trade within the Commonwealth if it were more practical. The Empire may not be dead entirely. perhaps it is just sleeping.

[Pax]

Prior to faster means of communication the American colonies could have sent Reps to parliament for terms of office. Instead of the Rep being able to run for office he could have been replaced at the end of his term with a new Rep.

After it became feasible due to quicker transportation and communication methods, the Reps could run for consecutive terms.

Instead of having america take over the parliament it would be more likely that parliament would add seats as new political units(state, county, province) were formed. These political units would not vote as block i.e. North American but would have the same political parties in all the units and would vote along party lines as they do now.
ex. tories in Texas, Maine, Manchester, and New South Wales

Even if the financial and population center changed that does not mean that the capital would need to be moved.

This is a good question. Harry Turtledove offers a take on this in his book The two Georges.

[notyoueither]

Re: Why didn't the United Kingdom give the New World the vote?

Originally posted by DanS
I'm afraid I've forgotten what little history I was taught on this specific topic. In short, why weren't the New World countries (Australia, US, Canada) given PMs in addition to their local assemblies? Likely, the UK would be a superpower today, if they had done so.

I seem to remember that it took parliament another 50 years to reform itself modestly after the American revolution. But even so, Canada and Australia should have been given the vote rather than the boot by the empire.

We were given PMs. See above, but we were not given the boot. The Empire evolved in the only way that it could have if survival were an issue. Take the WWs for instance. The people of Quebec would have revolted had they been conscripted by order from London, no matter if they had MPs there. They still rioted when conscription was introduced from Ottawa, but it was managed.

For other members of the Commonwealth, there were irritants stemming from the conduct of the wars. We didn't have to revolt, since we already had independence. What we did do is refuse to go to war under British officers. In Canada's case, that refusal crept up the ranks between 1915 and 1939. After Second Ypres the Canadian government insisted on Canadian regimental commanders. After later battles it became divisional commanders, and then corps. By 1939, we demanded our own Army command, and only relented in some select cases due to pressure back home to do something with the Army prior to the Second front.

So, things that would have led to dissention and revolt led instead to claims for more autonomy that could not be refused. After all, it's not like the Brits could have sent the Red Coats in to suppress Canada or Australia after independence had been granted. It was a one way ticket.

Direct representation in Westminster would be silly though. Boil it down, and the UK is simply another province/state, or 2, or 3 if you push it. The British Parliament has a lot of business to consider that is crucial for the areas it directly governs in the UK that mean squat to people in Ohio or New South Wales. Aside from losing the 13 colonies, the Brits did a very admirable job of first divesting itself of the bad old trappings of Empire, and then cloaking themselves in some of the better, newer Imperial garb. Not in all cases, but in some.

[Whoha]

The US doesn't vote as a block. It would have been the conservatives all over the empire vs the liberals all over the empire without regard for who was from where. Though the political machines in the US would have been a problem.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DanS
You would think that the Brits could have more imagination than that, in the day and age of steamships.

In the 1770's?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Krill
Since Britain had the largest navy in the world, then this makes no sense

Time for communication - it would be really inefficient to have to ferry candidates back and forth from London to America.

[Pax]

Although smaller than the U.S. , Britain has a considerable population and a sizable GDP. In a situation in which the U.S. remained apart of the British Empire, Americans would identify themselves as British or American subjects of the queen rather than American. It would be more important what state you are from than being American.
Britain would have so much to gain from this union that it would not really matter if there were a lot of seats that were outside of British mainland. These seats would be divided by there borders and there would be only a british national identity.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The economic argument could have meant at some point the capital moved from London to Washington.

Slight nitpick, without the revolution, the city of Washington would not exist. An American capital would most likely be New York or Boston.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Colon


What's integral? Britain declared war upon Germany in name for the entire Empire, but it seems to me Canada and Australia could have said "no" towards joining in since they signed separate peace treaties with Germany at the end of the war.

No, Australia had no choice - Britain was responsible for our foreign and defence policy. As our PM announced in 1939 - "Britain has declared war on Germany, and as a result of that declaration, Australia is also at war with Germany."

Dan, it's pointless to argue about this because it depends how you measure it but I think the consensus of historians is WWI started the process of decline of British economic and financial power. This process continued through the Great Depression to the end of World War II when there was no longer any doubt that Britain was no longer a world power. At the same time American power was rising all the time. You could argue the process continued into the post war period until decolonisation was complete but it was really after 1945 that it became clear that there were no longer a number of great powers but only 2 superpowers.

Britain should have followed it's tried and true appeasement policies, which were not Chamberlain's invention, but longstanding centuries old British policy, and made peace with Germany in 1940. Bloody Churchill was a loony.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
No, Australia had no choice - Britain was responsible for our foreign and defence policy. As our PM announced in 1939 - "Britain has declared war on Germany, and as a result of that declaration, Australia is also at war with Germany."

He was speaking of WW1, Horsey.

Also the Government of Canada disagreed with your PM about WW2, at least so far as Canada's involvement was concerned.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Not as Australian representatives - Australians could have British passports and were considered dual British citizens up till the Australian migration act, which came into force in around 1948. The then Australian Prime Minister joined the British war cabinet and was based in London in 1939/40, he had ambitions, which were taken seriously in some quarters, to replace Churchill as the British PM!

The economic argument could have meant at some point the capital moved from London to Washington.

But remember that the United States didn't overtake Britain as a global economic power until after WWI and it was not really until after WWII that U.S. global economic and strategic dominance became manifest.

Before that, Britain was top dog globally for about 3 centuries.

The U.S. surpassed Britain in GDP in the 19th century, and by the turn of the century produced about twice what Britain did. Certainly Britain was more influential, but in raw economic power it wasn't even close.

[DanS]

Dan, it's pointless to argue about this because it depends how you measure it but I think the consensus of historians is WWI started the process of decline of British economic and financial power. This process continued through the Great Depression to the end of World War II when there was no longer any doubt that Britain was no longer a world power. At the same time American power was rising all the time.

Yes, I think Colon's point was that regardless of what happened to the empire, American power was rising all the time. This is undoubtedly true.

Of course, I agree that the US assuming its place in the sun wasn't until the end of WWII, largely by American disinclination to get involved in geopolitics outside of its own backyard. And the empire's financial status was destroyed by WWI.

Really, I agree that arguing over a 30-year period is rather pointless for this thread. It is just important to note that the anglophonics' rather synthetic political divisions are what stopped the empire and what is stopping the US from being top dog indefinitely. The switchover in top dog status happened sometime between 1880 and 1945. We're adding population at a furious clip (about twice the rate of China), but it may not be enough by ourselves.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


No, Australia had no choice - Britain was responsible for our foreign and defence policy. As our PM announced in 1939 - "Britain has declared war on Germany, and as a result of that declaration, Australia is also at war with Germany."

Dan, it's pointless to argue about this because it depends how you measure it but I think the consensus of historians is WWI started the process of decline of British economic and financial power. This process continued through the Great Depression to the end of World War II when there was no longer any doubt that Britain was no longer a world power. At the same time American power was rising all the time. You could argue the process continued into the post war period until decolonisation was complete but it was really after 1945 that it became clear that there were no longer a number of great powers but only 2 superpowers.

Britain should have followed it's tried and true appeasement policies, which were not Chamberlain's invention, but longstanding centuries old British policy, and made peace with Germany in 1940. Bloody Churchill was a loony.

Even Chamberlain opposed negotiations with Germany in 1940, as did the Labour members of the war cabinet. Halifax was isolated. See John Lukas, Five Days in May.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove The treaty was signed in the 1830s as part of Belgium's independence from Holland. Remember that at the end of the Napoleonic Wars the Allies wanted a strong nation to the north of France to dissuade future French aggression, so they united Belgium with the Netherlands. By the 1830s it was clear that the union wasn't going to work out, so Belgium became an independent nation. The British signed a treaty guarenteeing the small new nation's integrity primarily as a warning to the French. Heck, Germany wasn't even a nation yet! At the time of the treaty's signing though Britain would still have been the larger partner.

I live in Belgium you know.

You have to wonder how a continued union between the two countries would have affected the cultures of both. Americans might have developed an even more euro-centric culture. Mind you that at the turn of the century American culture among the wealthy classes was quite euro-centric. As America came closer to England not only because of increasing political influence but also because of the influence of the telegraph and cheap newspapers certainly England would have adopted more American culture.

What about the Monroe Doctrine? Pretty much sounds like "You stay out of our damn business and we stay out of your damn business"

The Americans kicked the Spanish out of Cuba around the turn of the century and Roosevelt declared the US would take any action in Latin America to prevent giving European nations a pretext to intervene. Specifically aimed at the Brits and their investments in the continent since the Yanks didn't like such ****.

It's not because there's some kind of romantic view of an exotic culture that there's going to be any meaningful political rapprochement. Think of Japan's adoption of everything European at the turn of the century, and the hype In Europe for Japanese culture around the same period. Do you think that negated the geographical distance the slightest bit?

Do you know about the discord that led to Belgium’s independence? They really weren’t any more irreconcilable than those between the colonies and Britain. Probably less so because the southern Netherlands never got used to factual autonomy, and never their own political systems and conceptions of government. So I find it strange you somehow believe a unitary state of America and Britain could have been viable (which never existed in the first place) while realising the Kingdom of the Netherlands couldn’t work out.

Finally, I'd wonder what would happen on the day when it became apparent that the United Kingdom would have to concede a majority in Parliament to the Americans, presuming conditions under which British North America was granted full political integration and the "one man- one vote" rule was operative. Would the Brits have really been able to do it, or would they try to change the rules in order to retain a majority?

And how could the colonial keep in close touch with the concerns and the sentiments of their constituency? Even today people complain about “distant Brussels” or “distant Washington” so I doubt it would have been any better in the 18th century.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse No, Australia had no choice - Britain was responsible for our foreign and defence policy. As our PM announced in 1939 - "Britain has declared war on Germany, and as a result of that declaration, Australia is also at war with Germany."

Weren't war contributions voluntarily?