July 4, 2017

WHICH BEGS THE QUESTION...:

Why Not Taxation and Representation? A Note on the American Revolution (Sebastian Galiani & Gustavo Torrens, Date Written: June 2017, SSRN)

Why did the most prosperous colonies in the British Empire mount a rebellion? Even more puzzling, why didn't the British agree to have American representation in Parliament and quickly settle the dispute peacefully? At First glance, it would appear that a deal could have been reached to share the costs of the global public goods provided by the Empire in exchange for political power and representation for the colonies. (At least, this was the view of men of the time such as Lord Chapman, Thomas Pownall and Adam Smith). We argue, however, that the incumbent government in Great Britain, controlled by the landed gentry, feared that allowing Americans to be represented in Parliament would undermine the position of the dominant coalition, strengthen the incipient democratic movement, and intensify social pressures for the reform of a political system based on land ownership.

...why did the King prosecute the war?  Why not just cut a deal giving us our own Parliament, or representation in Parliament,  and him as head of state?

Posted by at July 4, 2017 8:04 AM

  

« AND WE HAD THE GOOD FORTUNE TO BE FIGHTING PEOPLE WITH SHARED IDEALS: | Main | THE CULTURE WARS ARE A ROUT: »