Holy ********* Crazy

[*michaelsean*]

(05-31-2017, 07:20 PM)Dill Wrote: The colonies were not a "whole" though. They were discrete political entities, each with a different relation with the mother country. The situation was different in different colonies, with all having local representation.  At one point the six northern ones were gathered under one administrative unit called the Dominion of New England. Right after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, they revolted and overthrew the Dominion governor in Boston and lietuentant governor in New York. William and Mary negotiated new contracts with each of these colonies, usually granting petitions of elected representatives of the colony in question. They didn't have direct representation in the British Parliament, but they had considerable power over their affairs. E.g. in New Jersey and New York, after 1702, state legislatures controlled the governor's salary--a real "check" on the crown. What made representation a battle cry were policies like the Navigation Acts and Stamp Act. However, "representation" would not really have fixed the problem, given the small population of the colonies and the manner in which their interests were diverging from Great Britain's. They would have always been voted down.

The point I am coming to is that the colonial system was eventually top cumbersome to ever function as democracy centered in London. This situation might map onto Bels point about a parliamentary vs a two party system with the Empire something like a two party system in which choices are narrowed for those far from the centers of power and major parties.  

Sorry missed this.  When I said as a whole I didn't mean they were united, just that across the board they didn't have direct representation, but thanks for the rest.  It's interesting.