The 13 British American Colonies could have become a Federation with a Constitutional Monarchy

I begin my rebuttal by issuing a gesture of thanks to my opponent for the acceptance for this debate. On the first point made by my opponent. I would like to first ask my opponent a question. Will my opponent concede that the colonies unioning for defence against the aboriginals and Spanish as well as the French in Louisiana serves as a basis for a political and socio-economic union? Would may opponent agree that a lack of willingness to fight British troops would have gave ground to those who wanted a dominion for America under the Crown of Britain? Well, it is true that the colonies were fiercely competitive with each other the trouble brought upon the colonies by Parliament would have served as the purpose of a political union. I would argue that such competition does not remove the idea of union. We see similar traits in Canada. The colonies that now make up the Canadian Federation which deeply divided among ethnolinguistic lines such as the Francophones and the Anglophones consistently fighting for control of the colonial assemblies which the English almost effectively won due to the backing by the imperial parliament in London. I must argue that the reasons you give for the colonization for America apply to Canada as well. The join or die movement was formed in 1754 during the seven years war so this is necessarily an argument for independence but simply colonial unity. The cartoon appeared along with Franklin's editorial about the "disunited state" of the colonies and helped make his point about the importance of colonial unity. It became a symbol of colonial freedom during the American Revolutionary War. One of the reasons that American Nationalists were so successful is because of how the King responded to the declarations made by the first continental congress. Had the King responded differently we might not be discussing this. In their petitions, the first Continental Congress asserted it's loyalty to the King while expressing its dissatisfaction with Parliament. In my opinion, this is grounds for colonial union under the King. A Parliamentary system does not necessarily mean no bicameral system. Britain had and still has a bicameral system the house of commons and the house of Lords. Canada has a House of Commons and a Senate. Whether Canada and the United Kingdom is a more or less democratic than the US is a debate for another day. When I say political structure I mean that each colony had a similar government to that of Canada and Australia. A Governor and a Legislative Assembly that had varying degrees of power. The colonies could have built on this in terms of dominion government. The horrible system of government established under the articles of confederation could have very well been changed if history had gone another way and the colonies could have set up the same systems of checks and balances but instead of a President for a head of state it would have been a King/Queen. A strong type of union government would allow the colonies to address the issues facing it. While you are right in your stated contention. The use of reason instead of violence would likely have given the rise of a union government. It really depended on what the new government would be able to do and what the states would be able to do. for example, I live in Alberta, Canada. One of the political parties via to form the government in next year's provincial election wants to withdraw Alberta from Canada Pension Plan because if Alberta had it's own pension plan an APP if you will than pension rates could be offered at a lower premium. I disagree that the cause of the union was the war or British invasion. I think the First Continental Congress is proof that the union was caused by actions of Parliament further supported by nationalism. While British invasions may have been having played a huge role it was the intolerable acts that caused the seed for the union to grow. The acts of Parliament started the cause for union and invasion, occupation and martial law followed suit. If Parliament had not acted than the colonies would have had no reason to unite against the British because it was Parliament who ordered the closing the of the Boston Habour and so forth. The colonial culture was actually quite similar. Very patriarchal in nature. The reasons why the colonies began has, in my opinion, nothing to do with the cause for a union. I would say that the main cause of disunion would have been slavery and Governmental structure, not culture something which you seem to indirectly argue for. I read your third contention and I must remind you what the discussion is about. I am arguing for a union of the colonies in which the King is head of state but the colonies are effectively independent to the likes of Canada and Australia. The British Parliament only really dealing with Foreign and Constitutional affairs. I disagree that population plays as big a role as make it out to be. Well, it is true that population does have a role it wasn't the reason for any sort of independence as many colonists saw themselves as English citizens just as much as they saw themselves as Americans. America had trouble but then what country doesn't I see no reason why a long-term union could not have survived in fact it seems that my arguments have stood under scrutiny. If Parliament needed to change something then I am sure the Imperial Parliament in the name of keeping control would listen just as they did with Canada and Australia. I repeat my stance on the idea basis I see for civil war is slavery or governmental structure defects. The latter could be solved through debate and resolution like Canada and the other could have been solved through other means besides war. The only way I see armed rebellion on the issue of slavery is if the southern part of America violently reacted to the Slave-trade act of 1834 which banned slavery in the British Empire. My Conclusion is simple. While my opponent gives me new points to consider. Many of my opponent's points seem to point towards union under the monarch. If the colonies unionized in a similar pattern to that of Canadian colonies the British Parliament's power would have weakened putting nationalists at ease. Basically, I see no reason in history why this union could not have happened.