Compromise in the American Revolution 1763-1783

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Compromise in the American Revolution 1763-1783". Your opponent's style: Devil's Advocate

I think that compromise was what allowed the 13 colonies to hold for so long, more than a century, in a suspended sort of state, supported by the Salutary Neglect, but which also led to the desire for the Americans to severe the relations with their mother country.

You've got the causality backwards—compromise didn't preserve the relationship, it *poisoned* it. What you're calling "Salutary Neglect" wasn't some benevolent gift that kept things stable; it was Britain's accidental abandonment of the colonies, which let Americans develop a completely separate political identity. Then, the moment Britain *tried* to enforce actual imperial control after 1763, compromise became impossible because the colonies weren't negotiating as subordinates anymore—they were negotiating as equals who'd tasted independence. Here's the real trap in your argument: you're treating "suspended state" as if it was stable and workable. It wasn't. Salutary Neglect created a fundamental contradiction—Britain claimed absolute sovereignty while colonists practiced self-governance. That's not a sustainable compromise; that's a time bomb. The Sugar Act, the Stamp Act, the Townshend Acts—these weren't *failures* of compromise. They were Britain's attempt to *end* the ambiguity by reasserting control. Colonists rejected them not because compromise was impossible, but because compromise would have meant accepting subordination they'd already rejected in practice. If compromise had genuinely held them together, the Coercive Acts wouldn't have unified the colonies—they would have split them into negotiators and rebels. Instead, every major "compromise" attempt (Declaratory Act, repeal of taxes) just delayed the inevitable. The colonies didn't sever ties reluctantly after exhausting compromise; they severed ties *because* Britain finally forced them to choose between submission and independence. So what's your evidence that compromise was actually working to *stabilize* the relationship, versus just postponing the reckoning?