What kind of turning point did the relationship between Britain and the United States go through in the 18th century?
In 1775, when the rift between Great Britain and the colonies was growing, liberals still loved peace and wanted to extend human happiness, but they regretted that civil war was imminent and wanted to avoid it.
Based on these views, Dr. Fausegill, Mr. David Barclays and Dr. Franklin held various meetings in London on American affairs.
The first two were English gentlemen with amiable personalities and high respect from the British Foreign Office, while Franklin was born an American and loved by many and was an agent of several colonies.
On December 4, 1774, at a meeting at the home of Dr. Fausegil before the proceedings of Parliament reached England, Franklin drafted and considered jointly at the request of the two men that implied a dialogue on the subject of the clause, which might create a lasting alliance between England and the colonies.
The three of them believe that the tea tax law will be repealed and all collected duties will be reimbursed to the several states that collect tea taxes; The act of navigation will be reformulated in the colony; Naval officers appointed by the crown are required to ensure these acts; All bills restricting colonial factories had to be reconsidered.
Tariffs arising from decrees regulating trade with the colonies shall be made available for public use in the respective colonies; Collectors and customs officers were appointed by each governor, not sent from England; Considering that the Americans maintained their own peaceful institutions, as well as the British monopoly on commerce, taxes could not be levied on them in peacetime.
No colony may station British troops, and if necessary, the consent of its legislature is required; In wartime, the king could levy taxes with the consent of Parliament, while each colony was to raise funds proportionally, and if Britain added the value of the pound to its land tax as a result of the war, then the colonies needed to increase the amount equivalent to a quarter of it.
On the territorial question, Castle William would be restored to the Gulf of Massachusetts, and there was no fort ordered by the king, but subject to the consent of its legislature; The Massachusetts and Quebec Bills would be repealed and granted to the Free Government of Canada.
All judges may be appointed when they are in good conduct, and their salaries are paid by Parliament from state revenue; The governor is supported by state legislatures, and if Britain renounces its monopoly on American business, then this assistance will be provided at any time.
while the US maritime courts will be reduced to the same powers as the United Kingdom and re-enact these acts in the United States; All powers of domestic legislation in the colony were abolished by the British Parliament.
On a second reading of these resolutions, Dr. Franklin elaborated on his rationale for each section.
In the first article, Franklin pointed out that when tea was destroyed in Boston, Great Britain was entitled to compensation and would certainly demand it, as was the case with mobs causing injuries during the Stamp Act, or Britain would be entitled to restitution of equivalent injuries.
But Britain could not have the right to compensation and inflict equal damage on the United States, much less return ten or twenty times the damage, as in the blockade of Boston Harbor, all these additional injuries should be repaired by Britain.
Therefore, if the Americans agree to pay the tea tax as a clause appropriate to the proposal, it is only out of a desire for peace and in line with the views expressed by Dr. Faussegil and Dr. David Barclays at the first meeting. This is indispensable, the dignity of Great Britain requires it, and if this is agreed, everything else will be easy.
But it has also been pointed out that the tea tax law should be repealed because it never produced any positive purpose, because it could never be enforced. The Americans considered the bill unconstitutional, while Parliament did not have the power to enact laws, and they believed that all the money extorted by Britain was illegal and therefore should be compensated.
In 1775, it was possible to observe the view that Americans were often accused of abolition. But in fact, those parts that were important to Britain, more inclined to increase their naval power, were as acceptable to the colonists as they were to the British population, because the Americans wanted to give priority to their own ships over those of foreigners, and the Americans did not want to see foreign ships enter their ports.
If these regulations had been re-enacted in the colonies, this would have prevented disputes from arose, since it would have shown the consent of the Americans to the British, and then, if all the duties they had generated had been collected by officials appointed by their respective governments and the products paid to the treasury of the Americans, these acts would have been better enforced and would have cost much less.
A large source of misunderstanding between the two countries would be eliminated, when the Admiralty jurisdiction that the Americans complained about would no longer be necessary and tensions between the two countries could be eased.
Bibliography:
The Origin of Hierarchical Distinction
History of Great Britain
