What would Grenville do?
Consider the options in the scenario in your packet (reposted on the Unit 2 page also) and post your plan for what George Grenville should do. Be sure to include why you think your option (or combination of options) is the best, and why it is better than alternatives.
First and foremost I would take the time to educate the public on the deficit as well as inform citizens of England the benefits of a colony. A big issue could arise if you don't explain thoroughly. The tax system in America needs to be reworked to make sure that the colonies are paying their fair share as well as they don't feel that it is unreasonably high. A big step in trying to cooperate is to take the time to listen. if I could travel to the New World and listen in on town hall meeting and help citizens it would improve the relations they had. Lastly, the customs service needs to be reworked to enforce the restrictions that are in place. By using these methods the government could restore its wealth as well as improve relations between the colony and the mainland.
ReplyDeleteYou're very optimistic both about the ability of a government in the 18th century to disseminate information and about the willingness of people to listen. :-)
DeleteThe first thing Grenville should have done was allow colonial smuggling to continue. If it costs more money to enforce laws on smuggle and taxes, the smart thing to do is let one go. It will also be seen by the colonists as a peace offering by the British, who are perhaps starting to see the colonial was. And because taxes are a source a revenue, those should continue to be collected. Secondly, allow the colonists to have representation in Parliament. Yes, it is a concession, but their role can be largely symbolic, and their power limited - just stick them in the House of Commons. Also, propaganda should be utilized. Newspapers and pamphlets are very influential in colonial life. Grenville and Parliament should use this to their advantage. Lastly, don't interfere with colonial trade more than necessary. Impose no laws that will give advantages of British products over colonial ones in the colonies. Merchants have a lot of power, and a lot friends; Grenville would be wise not to meddle in economics that will affect all the colonists badly.
ReplyDeleteThis is sort of nuanced - still pretty optimistic. :-) Unfortunately, the colonists realized that they would be outvoted in Parliament, so what they really meant by "no taxation without representation" was "only our colonial legislatures can tax us."
DeleteI propose reasonable taxation on the colonies. Since the colonists have a larger income than those who live in England, it would make morse sense to tax the colonists;it would not be fair to tax residents in England as much as the colonists, but a slight tax increase can better the stance on debt. It is understood that the colonists dislike taxation but in turn representation in parliament will be honored. Understanding that Britain spends more money trying to stop smuggling than getting what they spent in return the British custom service will be loosened a tad. In order to take further action citizens of both the new world and Britain will need to be informed and educated on these new impositions.
ReplyDeleteWhat is "morse sense"? ;-)
DeleteAllowing smuggling to continue will - behind the scenes - please some colonists, but I'm still not sure they will be thrilled with taxes - even "fair" ones.
My idea would be to raise taxes all over the empire, including the British home islands. Also I would tax weaker a little more British colonies a little more because they are less likely to rebel successfully. I would also increase trade with the American colonies with the help of new laws implemented by Parliament. This will be a long process and not a short fix, somewhat similar to the recent recession, but in the long run it is the best option to keep everyone happy.
ReplyDeleteUm - you mean you would put higher taxes on weaker colonies? From the British point of view, all of the colonies are weak. It will definitely be a long process, one way or the other.
DeleteSince a majority of the war was fought on the colonists land, and the colonists quartered the soldiers during the war, Grenville should impose taxes on England. Since Europe was protecting the colonists and ended up fulfilling their wishes for expansion by winning the war, the colonists should be taxed as well. It should be an equal split between the two places that are ultimately supposed to be unified. The colonists chose to leave England, knowing there would be risks and challenges ahead. Taxes are much better than losing the war with insufficient funds would have been for the colonists. The debt cannot be solved overnight, so Grenville should take a slow and fair approach at taxing both England and the colonists in hopes of building back the money that was spent.
ReplyDeleteThis is cautious, but a little unspecific...how "slow" are you willing to go? Britain believes that its debt needs to be addressed immediately. Remember, too, that Parliament did NOT fulfill colonists' wishes for expansion; the Proclamation of 1763 banned them from settling on the land they thought they had won - and put them in a bad mood to hear about taxes in the next couple of years.
DeleteWhile the war debt was massive, and many taxes needed to be repaid, I would have imposed moderate taxation on the colonies. Although they are not the primary country involved in the war, they are still a part of England, the war occured in the Americas, and they were very much a part of it. Proposing taxes in either place is a very risky decision, but it must be placed on the colonies due to the very real potential of serious inflation in England, along with much higher existing taxes. We also must not forget that England is significantly closer to the ideas of the Enlightenment (based in Paris), and some of the new Enlightenment principles could inspire a widespread revolt against the taxes that are trying to be impose. To appease the colonists, I suggest the English Parliament creates several new seats, so the colonies can be represented in at least the House of Lords. This would allow the colonists to feel like they are a greater part of the British Empire, while still being taxed for their share in the French and Indian War.
ReplyDeleteWell, the colonists cannot be represented in the House of Lords, unless they are made nobles. And the colonists are very suspicious of the idea of being represented in Parliament, since they know they will be outvoted. What they really want is for taxes to be determined and imposed by their colonial legislatures.
DeleteGrenville should have tried to collect taxes that were supposed to already be enforced in the colonies. This could have been done by tightening up the British Customs Service in order to catch smugglers. It is the better alternative because increasing taxes or adding additional taxes on either the American colonies or the English would raise havoc and cause more problems. With smuggling tightened, more products would be paid for, including the taxes from those products, which would also increase the revenue. Even if the money is gained back at a slower rate, it will be consistent and definitely cause less problems for the English government from both the American colonies and England.
ReplyDeleteYou're possibly right - enforcing existing laws would be perhaps the least provocative action. The main problem with this one, which the British government of course tried, was that there were many colonists is coastal towns involved in smuggling, and some of them (i.e. John Hancock) were prominent and influential people.
DeleteSince american colonists hated taxes, and felt that they should not have been taxed by the British, Grenville should have tried to collect taxes already in force by the colonies, by tightening up the British Customs Service, in order to catch smugglers.By gradually collecting these taxes, it would not have been a cause for revolt by the American colonists, unlike there would be if the taxes were raised.This idea of decreasing the national debt would have neither helped English-American relations, but more importantly would not have weakened them further
ReplyDeleteSee my comment on the post above about smuggling. :-)
DeleteWhen colonists began to explore America, they knew they would be faced with difficulties. Therefore, i think it is justified to tax the colonies, but they should not be the only ones paying for the debt. It should also be split with England, but maybe tax the colonists more seeing as how they make more money. The most important thing is that all colonists and people in England understand the problem with the debt, and that their help is needed.
ReplyDeleteI'm not entirely sure that getting people to "understand" - itself perhaps a huge problem of communications - will get them to agree on what the solution should be. From the colonists' perspective, the expensive wars were more about England than about them, especially after the Crown banned settlement across the Appalachians with the Proclamation of 1763. Plus Americans just don't like taxes. :-)
DeleteAlthough the colonist feel that the war was to protect England's interest as opposed to the colonies, the colonists did not have the unity to fight the French and Indians on their own. Therefore, it is perfectly fair for the colonists to have to pay taxes to support a war that essentially saved them. To make the tax services fair, the government should figure out what percent of the population is in the colonies, and make them pay that percent of taxes. Also, the richer people in England should have to pay a higher amount of taxes than the poor. Parliament should also represent the colonies in some way. The lifestyle in England is very different from life in the colonies, so Parliament cannot know what is best for them. The colonies should have their own subdivision of Parliament. It won't be given much power, but then at least the colonists feel they are being represented. Also, a decrease in smuggling enforcement is necessary because it wastes money. The government should only use the revenue produced from stopping smuggling in order to actually stop it.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a fair point about the war, but the colonists were pretty convinced, after the Proclamation of 1763, that Britain viewed the war as being all about Britain, without regard to what the colonists' interests were. The idea of creating a separate colonial Paliamentary body is sort of interesting, but the main problem is that in the 18th century conception of "sovereignty" ultimate authority could not be divided without being lost altogether; someone had to be sovereign and have ultimate power (and that, to the British, had to be Parliament). One of the creative things that Madison, Hamilton, and others came up with at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 was the idea that sovereignty could be shared between states and a Federal government.
DeleteIf I were British Treasury Minister George Grenville, I would ultimately make a compromise with the colonies. The first thing I would do is give them a voice in Parliament because that is a major problem the colonists have with the English government. They feel ignored and dismissed as if they don't matter. After this was put into action and the colonists became at rest, I would increases taxes in the colonies at a reasonable amount. Something that the colonists could live with but that helped reduce the war debt. I would definitely not tighten the British customs service because it wastes money and would only produce unnecessary disputes that could ruin their chances at taxing the colonies. These changes would prevent problems with colonists and help the economy grow again after the post war depression.
ReplyDeleteThe main problem here might be that 1) the colonists know that representation in Parliament is just a ploy; "no taxation without representation" really means "only our own legislatures can tax us," and 2) given that, there is no "reasonable" amount of taxes in the mind of the colonists.
DeleteMy opinion on the conundrum that Greenville is in is to implement 2 policies. First tighten the customs laws that are currently in place in America. These laws are being loosely followed and if they are more heavily enforced, than England will receive more revenue. While this is taking place remove some of the restrictions that the colonists have. Allow people in places like New England to manufacture more goods so that England will make more money via the customs laws, as well as make the colonists feel like it isn't all bad. Finally, impose taxes on the colonists. Instead of blindly putting taxes on goods entering and exiting the colonies, give each colonial assembly an amount of money that they must raise each year. This way the colonists receive their representation while England makes money off new taxes. Furthermore this plan paints the colonial assemblies as the ones imposing taxes and therefore are the evil ones. This would avert the chances of a revolution while everyone gets what they want. This plan is better than all other plans because it benefits everyone involved. The colonists get representation and some economic freedom, while the Crown and Parliament get their money from taxes. These policies, if put into place correctly, would also ease some of the Anglo-American tension.
ReplyDeleteThe main difficulty with this approach is that you would have to compel the legislatures to raise the contributions you demand, and it would be pretty transparent that this was simply a sham way to hide new imperial taxes. Since in many colonies the legislatures are the ones protesting the taxes, you would have a hard time getting anything like universal agreement to tax for the debt. It is indeed a "conundrum."
DeleteI would start by tightening the Customs Service and increasing taxes in the colonies. This would be more effective than only raising colonial taxes because without a tight Customs Services, there would be no revenue anyways. In order to prevent a revolution, I would give the colonies some representation in Parliament. By allowing the colonies to be represented, the colonists won't believe they're being taxed without representation. I would also also increase taxes in England. Doing this would help decrease debt, but it would also make sure that the colonist don't feel that they are the only ones being taxed. The colonists will be less likely to revolt if they know that people in England are also being subjected to higher taxes.
ReplyDeleteWell, as I commented on other posts above, the colonists do not really want representation. They know they will always be outvoted. What "no taxation without representation" means to them is "only the colonial legislatures can tax us."
DeleteA plan for the British national debt would be to increase taxes in both England and the American colonies. In this way, both sides can not argue that the other one has to pay. It is understood that there is a chance of resistance and rebellion, so some changes will be made to compensate for the new taxes. A possible way to collect more taxes is to catch smugglers by tightening the British Customs Service, however, this service often takes in less money than it spends trying to enforce the taxes. That is why this option would not work well and why the first one could be more efficient. Also, by having both sides pay these new taxes, the burden of paying taxes will be spread to a larger amount of people.
ReplyDelete