Many of the Loyalists during the time of the American Revolution wanted reforms to make the colonies truly represented in the British parliamentary system. The propaganda disseminated by those that wanted separation from Great Britain effectively prevented true debate as to methods to make the colonies true members that were represented in the British Parliament. The only newspapers published were those that supported the revolutionary causes. Newspapers that attempted to present a loyal to the crown were shut down and, in some cases, destroyed. So much for freedom of speech.
A somewhat off-topic response to this somewhat off-topic observation ...
Well, freedom of speech was a pretty new concept in that environment, and at least one reasonably authoritative and believable
source remarks that " Active violence against Loyalist printers was rare, however, before the war. Patriots would threaten them, attempt to ostracize them, and demonize them in their own newspapers, but not usually attack them." This does in fact look like a "propaganda" war (on both sides) that didn't prevent debate but rather constituted debate (at least of a sort).
Perhaps one of the biggest problems in "integrating" the colonies into the British parliamentary system were those parts of it's parliamentary system that rested in fundamental ways on the role and power of the monarchy and the large and associated systems of "nobles" and the titled aristocracy. And this isn't true of
every parliamentary system because a monarchical and aristocratic base and power structure isn't even remotely required to have a parliamentary form of government.
The British parliamentary system at that time was a monarchical and aristocratic system based on inherited titles and wealth controlled ultimately by the monarch and those who were members of that aristocrat class. This was quite inconsistent with the situation in the American colonies where there was substantial freedom for individuals to direct and improve their own lives. And while economic classes continued to exist, those boundaries could be crossed (through work and the accumulation of property and wealth) in ways that simply couldn't be done in British society of the time.
British philosophers such as Hobbes and Locke had treated the problems of that sort of society at length, and in fact Locke's writings and approach -- particular in the area of individual rights and the concept of private of property -- formed a significant part of the philosophy and constitutional approach taken by the Continental Congress and later the U.S. Hobbes', after struggling mightily (and writing shortly before Locke), eventually threw up his hands and argued for the necessity of a monarchy in order to provide for the uniform and continuing protection and adjudication of individuals' safety and rights -- but parts of the argument are inconsistent, and certainly unconvincing; and Hobbes himself wasn't happy with it.
I mention this only to provide some context for saying that the very idea of integrating the colonies into the British "parliamentary system" was in fact fraught with fundamental difficulties, the resolution of which seem insurmountable. For example, was a new colonial aristocratic (and thereafter hereditary) class to be created? And how? At the whim of the monarch, or by bureaucratic act of the parliament? What could be the criteria for that, given that that class was firmly based on heredity and such concepts as "divine right"? If such a class wasn't to be created in the colonies, then how was representation in the House of Lords (which retained substantial power) to be managed? Etc. Just one example of a basic problem.
Carwine's comment that
Carwine said:
From the British point of view Americans were traitors to the crown.
may not be entirely accurate (though certainly many did view things this way), but it is substantially accurate because of these sorts of difficulties and the light in which they put the colonists' "requests" or "demands" -- since from a reasonable British point of view they (mostly untitled commoners) were requesting the impossible. And note the phrase "traitors to the
crown". Not traitors to a parliamentary form of government (although in this case the monarchy and system of lords, etc. was inextricably part of that form of government).
The British are still working on this, the future of the House of Lords looks quite dim, and the monarchy has been shoved pretty much into a niche of ceremony and entertainment, run much like a tourist and entertainment business (though still in part funded by British citizens). But the idea that making "the colonies true members that were represented in the British Parliament" was nowhere near as thinkable as, for example, absorbing the US into the Canadian parliament or other contemporary European parliaments -- even if you think that might not be too bad of an idea. So yeah, the support for the revolution was somewhat intense, and feelings were both strong and rational about any kind of workable "reconciliation".
