I'm writing a paper on the era of the Stamp Act (1765) concerning primarily the clash of legal cultures between what was then the Colonies of North America and the mother country, Great Britain.
You can email or message me for (an abbreviated version of) what I have so far. But my mode of attack in answering this question is mostly this:
The legal culture of Great Britain centered around two main principles. Firstly that it was a bureaucracy and with it had all the shortcomings of bureaucracies. These shortcomings which were established in the legal structure of how Great Britain operated made it difficult to respond in a timely fashion to the Stamp Act rebellions. In other words, Britain was never proactive and its reactive performance was severely hampered by the strict adherence to tradition. (Rather than the grassroots, propaganda driven culture in North America.) The Second main principle was Parliamentary supremacy. This was a huge road block because it essentially gave Britain the "right" to tax the colonists. While the colonists viewed taxation as a "privilege" that was not really granted to Parliament.
Firstly I'd like to field comments. Does anybody think this is a valid line of attack? Any idea how it may be improved where its strengths and possible weaknesses are?
Secondly, I've run into a bit of a problem with sourcing this argument. I need to find more sources relating to the bureaucratic structure of Great Britain and evidence that this structure did indeed slow down reaction times and lead to an over-dependence on "civil" techniques to combat aggressive and riotous ones.
If any one can point me to references that would be great as well.
Thanks so much,