Could Britain have stopped the American Revolution from happening? If so, how?

Answer 1

Yes, they could have stopped it. However, the war was too expensive and the colonies so far away and not of top concern to England at the time the Revolution broke out. They were busy fighting wars against their closer and more powerful enemies on the continent. So, essentially, the British did not send as many troops or funds needed (when they could have - or at least the troops) which helped them lose the war.

Answer 2

Nothing in history is inevitable. Given the right set of circumstances, every alternative is possible. What you need to do is look at the possible alternatives and see what the different outcomes would have been.

In this case, you have the English government which is trying to cement its empire. In 1707, England finally was able to force through a unification movement with Scotland but there was still strong support for independence in both Scotland and Ireland. Much of English capital was invested in overseas trading and the colonies. Much of the English economy is tied to the success of the East India Company. The problems of administering a large empire are creating unrest at home and raising expenditures without generating enough new tax revenue. France is posturing for war. This is the basic situation in England in the 1760's, when the Revolution had its birth (fighting may not have begun for another decade, but the mass unrest began in the 1760s).

England could have taken a conciliatory attitude and given redress to some of the colonists. Parliament could have given assurances to the southern colonies that it would not abruptly end slavery. Parliament could have reduced trade barriers to the colonies, allowing trade to expand. It was also possible to devolve some of the legislative authority to the local legislatures. With some combination of these it would have been possible to avoid an open breach with the Colonies, or if a rebellion occurred, it would be localized and could be put down.

Now lets look at the possible consequences of the compromises listed above. If England had eased the trade restrictions to the colonies, competition would have likely dramatically increased prices in England, creating a recession. The only thing worse than having poor, starving and pissed off colonists 2,000 miles away is having poor, starving, and pissed off citizens outside the palace gates.

Slavery was quickly becoming viewed as immoral in English society. Slavery itself was declared illegal in the home isles, and restrictions on the slave trade were coming. Compromising moral principles is not something governments should do. It was highly unlikely that the institution of Slavery in the colonies would have been permitted past 1800.

If England had allowed the Colonies local legislative authority, it is likely that it would have sparked separatist movements in Ireland and Scotland. The American Revolution in actuality sparked an Irish Rebellion in the 1790's, so this fear is quite justified. With the recent French War, and the threat of another looming on the horizon, England didn't want to have to deal with local unrest. Also if Parliament gave in a little today, what would the Colonies ask for tomorrow? The old adage "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile" comes to mind.

Finally from the Colonist's point of view, England had been restricting life in the Colonies and would continue to do so. The Colonies wanted to grow and expand, and that expansion was being hampered by Parliament. Had England given concessions in the 1770's, Americans would have been back in 1800 asking for more. The American and English cultures had grown apart. While the Colonists still viewed themselves as 'English', a new national identity was being formed and that identity would not be subservient to England or any other master.

So it is possible that the American Revolution could have been avoided or minimized. There are things that both England and the Colonies could have done to ease tensions. The likelihood that such compromises would have been made is small. It is even less likely that such compromises could have permanently avoided an independence movement. The nature of such of movement in time, place, manor, and temperament would be different from that of the American Revolution. While American Independence is the probable eventual outcome, the American Revolution as it occurred was avoidable.

Answer 3

Yes, they could have. War is almost always avoidable, but is rarely avoided. The Tea Tax and Stamp Act which were so unpopular in the colonies were not really necessary. Most of the greivances the colonists had were eventually addressed by the King, but too late to stop the revolution from occuring. Once it gained momentum, it was too late. And news from England took several weeks to reach the colonies. As in the war of 1812, where the final battle of New Orleans occured after the war had ended; the revolutionary war began even though most of the colonists' greivances were being remedied in England at the time.

Otherwise, England could have sent more troops to pacify the colonies. They had roughly 2 years to do this. Once France came in to aid the revolutionaries, England had to shift her troops to protect the more lucrative sugar trade in the Carribean.

Answer 4

Yes.
Britain and the crown of England could have treated the colonies with much more respect. Basically the American Revolution was about taxes - the imposition of heavy taxes on the colonies to pay for a war the colonists had no part in. England had just gotten over wars and skirmishes with France in the Seven-Years War under King George III. The colonies were to be taxed to pay for this war, but the colonies did not have a strong economy to pay for a war elsewhere. They sent a delegate in the form of Benjamin Franklin to try to reason with the crown to reduce the taxes, but the delegate was not even allowed near Parliament - colonists' had zero rights under British Rule - and the American Colonies were to accept the imposition of taxes or else.
"No Taxation without Representation" became the main rallying cry of Revolutionaries, who did not agree to paying heavy taxes to the crown when most were barely surviving under harsh living conditions, let alone making a profit in local businesses. The Boston Tea Party was about a group of Revoltionaries who dumped the tea delivered from ships from England into the Boston Harbor rather than pay the heavy taxes and tariffs on the tea. (It's why Americans are coffee drinkers today - because colonists' refused to pay heavy taxes to drink English Tea.)
Secondly and equally important, was that colonists had no rights concerning property ownership under British rule. Those who owned property under British rule had to pay heavy tariffs on products exported from America to England, plus property taxes, plus only British citizens could own, buy or sell property under British rule in British established colonies. But American-born English colonists were not considered equal to English-born British colonists, and colonists were not considered to be true British citizens, so American colonists had zero rights under British rule, especially in England. (And they were supposed to like it that way!)
So, had England allowed Ben Franklin an audience in Parliament, if England had levied lower taxes on the colonists, had Britain established personal property rights and British citizenship to all colonists, they could easily have avoided the Revolutionary War.

Answer 5

no. The situation in the colonies that became the US was just like the situation in the colonies that became Canada. they rebelled, we didnt.

The US was founded by puritans - right wing religious nuts who had lost power in England after Cromwell got dumped, and had been wanting to get back into power. No matter what England did, these guys would have rebelled. The US has always been dominated by miltaristic fundamentalists from day one.

Answer 6

Yes, but the king at the time had bigger problems in Europe and not enough money.