Edmund Burk: The Gift of Foresight

The solution to peace was seemingly simple, yet grossly overlooked and forgotten in the contentious debates during the “American Crisis” of the late eighteenth century. Sir Edmund Burke, however, seemed to recognize the causes and present an obvious [it was certainly so to him] solution. Perhaps, some could argue, he was naive and tainted with “republican” virtues. Burke was well aware of the Empire’s apathy with the colonies. Certainly, he had heard the grievances from the colonies too, and perhaps even bore witness to Benjamin Franklin’s excoriation given him before the Privy Council of 1774. It’s even conceivable that the “Old Whigs” had heard enough for themselves from this boisterous “New Whig”. Nevertheless, Burke’s speech fell on doltish minds and idle ears.

Granting the colonies autonomy would not have been an appeasement nor a concession. It would have been merely giving official recognition to political practices already in effect in America. Their prior and present autonomous nature was an outgrowth of their circumstances. They were far from the mother country, isolated by distance and territory; from feckless and in most cases nonexistent central administration and slow and unreliable communications rendered by the current times. Autonomy was the most logical solution. The Americans had already possessed powerful local governments and the citizenry with the skills and acumen to govern. In other words, they had grown to be mature purveyors of their own destiny.

In essence, this would require the British to recognize the futility of it’s paternal attitudes towards the guidance of Americas future as an obedient servant. Moreover, they would have to see the win-win solution that Burke so eloquently points out in his speech. It wouldn’t erode the Empire’s standing, but serve to enhance its status. Burke (1775) argues that allowing the colonies to keep their “civil rights associated with your government-they will cling and grapple to you and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance”.

The Empire would be viewed as the benevolent and wise parent, that embraces the virtues of liberty and is ennobled to extend them to her subjects as an example of her greatness. Burke (1775) further claims that all the useless and docile proclamations, edicts and commissions will bear no effect as great as granting the Americas her autonomy.
The failure of the British ministers to notice this is perhaps entrenched in their rigidity of the 18th century. Their opposition to change and more so out of fear from the “pandora's box” which may be opened. If America demands autonomy, then what’s to become of her other “plantations” around the world? It’s a contagion sure to rapidly spread. Conciliations, in the British view, had been granted before. The repeal of the Stamp Act was a magnanimous gesture which virtually went unappreciated by so called “rebellious ingrates”. Although, more wiser men in America could clearly read between the lines of the Declaratory Act. To many colonists it was an affirmation of their righteous position on “taxation without representation”, but the subtle and subversive message within was all too obvious to the less ignorant. It was a stern and clear assertion of British Parliament’s sovereignty over “all” of her subjects.

Essentially, it was a stalemate that both parties were locked. Neither of which was willing to make concessions which, in their view, had already been given. On one hand, the colonies with legitimate grievances regarding their right to proper representation and taxation that was congruent with their pursuit of [happiness] trade and mercantilism. American trade benefited English coffers as well as their own. What empowered America also enriched Britain. On the other hand, England: empire with all it’s glory and prestige, to include her enlightenment and liberties, which extended and trickled down to it’s subjugated. America was a mere extension of English power. Never, to be viewed as a legitimate equal. The colonies were given autonomy, hence she must be an obedient and loyal servant also. Anything less was an affront to his majesty and the empire.

Sir Edmund was expectedly mindful that this particular stalemate and failure to negotiate would lead to war. War not just confined to the American territory and a few of it’s uncontrollable inhabitants, but very possibly world war, to include some of it’s former nemesis such as France and Spain. A war, if lost, that would have enduring ramifications to the British sense of empire for years to come.
In conclusion, Burke’s view to grant these concessions to the colonies was a small price to pay for the extension of English power. She had hegemony in the colonies with France’s defeat in the last war. American trade would benefit British treasuries and colonial autonomy would serve as a beacon and testament to the empire’s might and virtue. Sadly, British views were obstinate and therefore would greatly hinder any rational solution. Eventually, the drums of war would din the voices of pragmatism.